One of the most interesting moves of the Trump administration so far has been the lightning strike to shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID):

On closing it down Musk said: “USAID is a criminal organisation. Time for it to die.”

On Friday last week, Elon Musk and DOGE wanted access to agency systems of the giant USAID. When senior officials refused, by Saturday they were put on leave.

“Spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” Musk boasted on X.

“It became apparent that it’s not an apple with a worm it in,” Musk said in a live session on X Spaces early Monday. “What we have is just a ball of worms. You’ve got to basically get rid of the whole thing. It’s beyond repair.” — AP News

Elon Musk and DOGE closed the doors, and sent the head honchos packing. One officeworker said staff rushed to take down things like Pride Flags and incriminating books (whatever that means), and now they have lost access to their computers, and the site is down.

As Donald Trump and Elon Musk cut back rogue government agencies, USAID looks more and more like a giant money laundering racket. It has (or had) 10,000 employees and a budget of $50 billion dollars. It’s presented as a humanitarian aid group, but the AID in US-AID means the US Agency for International Development which turns out to mean anything and everything. The humanitarian projects include giving $53 million dollars to the starving EcoHealth Alliance which used that to pay for bioweapon research in Wuhan, China, helping to create Covid-19. USAID also funded the production of heroin in Afghanistan. The WhiteHouse revealed that USAID also funded DEI projects in Serbia, and DEI musicals in Ireland. They spent US Taxpayer money on transgender operas in Colombia and a trans comic book in Peru.

As Mike Benz describes it, USAID was the Ultimate Nerve Center Of A Rogue Foreign Policy Establishment

Mike Benz, former State Department Cyber expert, has studied USAID closely and says:

USAID grantee NGOs literally take their USAID money then turn around and lobby all key members of Congress to give more and more US taxpayer money to USAID each year in the budget. USAID buys an army of lobbyists with your tax dollars to give it more of your money.

He also wonders why USAID gave $27 million to the US fiscal sponsor of the group controlling Soros-funded prosecutors and telling them which American citizens and politicians to prosecute?

Indeed, somehow USAID is also one of the “BBC Media Actions” top ten donors? Go figure? It’s just the US of A helping out third world countries like the UK, right?

As Mike Benz said: the “BBC was in direct cahoots with USAID leadership on Internet censorship efforts to crush BBC’s online populist news competitors since 2017. I went over 9 hours of receipts on this in a 3-part private livestream lecture for my X subscribers”.

The BBC part of The Blob takes Blob money to lobby to cripple the media outside The Blob’s control. The words “Self Serving” come to mind.

Ron Paul agrees — USAID is a key component of US Regime change, meddling in foreign affairs. The news from Ukraine is essentially being controlled by USAID. Ukrainian media is Blob media.

Jo Nova posted a follow-up the next day:

Hands up who is still reeling with the news that USAID had 50 thousand million dollars of political and media influence? The annual budget of $50 billion dollars in the hands of unaccountable activist NGOs buys a lot of “journalists”, editors and teenage protestors. Suddenly a lot of global patterns make more sense.

Today we found out that news outlets like Politico, and the New York Times were being given millions of dollars from the US government.

Benny Johnson says:

This is the biggest scandal in news media history: No employee at Politico got paid yesterday. First time ever the company missed a pay period. This is a crisis. Now we learn Politico — a “news company” — which spent the last 10 years trying to destroy the MAGA Movement was being massively funded by USAID.

It seems some $27 million dollars went to Politico during the Biden years — and that’s just the subscriptions (not the USAID). Truly, Politico charges as much as $10,000 for a single “Politico Pro” subscription — and so the taxpayers fork out big bucks to pay for politicians “work expenses”, and the money ends up covering the salaries of journalists who are working hard to deceive the hapless taxpayers.

As ZeroHedge reminds us, Politico went in hard in the 2020 election to cover for the Hunter Biden laptop from hell.

They also point out that the Blob has many other ways to keep newspapers toeing the line…

It’s not just the subscriptions: there are huge “ad contracts”, dinner parties DC throws itself under the guise of “media conferences”, sponsorships, etc all paid for by taxpayers. Once done with Politico look at its spawn Axios, founded by Politico veterans

Niccolo Soldo included some commentary on the USAID shutdown in his weekend post a few days back:

Today I learned that all NGOs working in foreign countries that are funded by the USGov are having their funding suspended for 90 days. This is already sending shock waves around the world, as not only are State Department officials losing their shit, but local NGO employees are wondering how they can continue operating in the meantime:

People are quickly learning just how much of a footprint the USA has in their countries and how significant an influence they have on politics in their homelands. All of their Trojan horses are being exposed at the same time, meaning that it will take some time for most people to digest the sheer scale and size of US meddling abroad.

Mainstream media is already beginning to push back against this funding suspension, using their typical tricks to try and paint this order as potentially “risking the safety of millions“:

Marocco strode into the offices of USAid this week flanked by members of Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency”, a special group Trump created, with clipboards in hand. Several hours later, almost 60 senior officials from the office had been put on paid leave. Veteran aid officials with decades of experience at the agency were escorted from the building by security, according to current and former USAid officials, and their email accounts were frozen.

“They wanted to decapitate the organisation,” said a current USAid employee. “And they did it by pushing aside the leadership and decades of experience.”

The purge followed confusion within USAid over the stop-work orders drafted by Marocco and signed by Marco Rubio, the new secretary of state, leading some to believe that limited actions could continue if funds had already been committed.

The Guardian UK has decided to focus its attacks on Mr. Marocco.

“We have identified several actions within USAid that appear to be designed to circumvent the president’s executive orders and the mandate from the American people,” wrote Jason Gray, USAid’s acting administrator, saying the relevant staff would be put on administrative leave.

Some employees have openly rebelled. In an email to all staff seen by the Guardian, Nicholas Gottlieb, USAid’s director of employee and labor relations, said that appointees at USAid and “Doge” had “instructed me to violate the due process of our employees by issuing immediate termination notices”.

Calling the requests “illegal”, Gottlieb said he “will not be a party to a violation of [due process]”. Hours later, he was put on administrative leave.

In a separate email to the sidelined USAid senior staff, Gottlieb wrote that the “materials show no evidence that you engaged in misconduct”.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

The chaotic rollout of the ban has led to whiplash for critical programs around the world, from emergency Aids relief (which has been granted a waiver), to clean-water and sanitation programs, to the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, which the Washington Post reported on Friday had gone offline.

Yet there are few details of a vast review program, which is supposed to evaluate thousands of foreign aid grants as well as an expected torrent of waiver requests. And a number of the senior USAid staff put on administrative leave were lawyers who had helped prepare requests for exemptions from the foreign aid freeze, sources said.

Demoralization:

Previous cables indicated that the people involved would include Marocco or the new director of policy planning, Michael Anton, another political appointee. The state department declined to answer questions from the Guardian about who is evaluating the reviews and how many staff had been detailed to the process.

“We’re all trying to figure out, is there a review process? Who’s part of that review?” said the former senior USAid official. “Is it Pete Marocco and his two best friends?”

At USAid, other directives have been enacted that have both defunded and demoralised staff. Photographs of aid programs around the world have been literally stripped off the walls after a “directive has been issued to remove all artwork and photographs from the offices and common spaces across all buildings”.

Musk’s “efficiency department” has crowed about slashing $45m in scholarships for students from authoritarian Burma.

The $40bn a year that the US spends on foreign aid is less than 1% of its budget. But the US spends $4 out of every $10 spent globally on humanitarian aid, according to the state department, and the sudden cutoff has led to thousands of layoffs among US contractors and local partners around the world.

And of course:

A former USAid official said the decisions could put millions of people around the world at risk.

“If there’s a tropical cyclone that hits Cox’s Bazar tomorrow, then how are you going to save all those people, and then how are you going to rebuild if there’s a stop-work order?” said a former senior USAid official, referring to the city in Bangladesh where more than 1 million Rohingya refugees are living. “You could have people sitting there for 90 days and sitting and waiting for what? That’s what worries more.”

Critics who say that this order effectively reduces US influence abroad are absolutely correct … but what if this is part of a widely-assumed fundamental change in how the USA conducts its foreign policy?

Seen on the social media network formerly known as Twitter: