Comment by ksynwa 4 days ago
What's Elon's beef with USAID? I would think he would go after something like food stamps first owing to his libertarian ethos. Maybe he sees USAID as a completely benevolent handout and a waste of money? I cannot begin to understand why.
Eliminating foreign aid seems to be a common cause of neo-conservative movements.
Boris Johnson shut down the British equivalent(Department for International Development) and scrapped the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on aid.
It's simplistic, drastic and brings no specific domestic effect which could be a rallying point for unrest.
It's also very easy to come up with rage bait stories of corruption and waste as justification, because in any organisation spending billions of dollars around the world you will always be to find something ridiculous that got funding, even though the proportion of the budget it represents is insignificant.
Lol you clearly have no idea what a 'neo-conservative' is or their history.
Neo-Conservatives were a branch of Democrat wark-hawks who wanted to police the world, that were upset about the pacifist attitude of the Democrats at the time - they emerged in the 60's and managed to largely take control of the Republican party moving forward, peaking under George W Bush.
Their founding principal was "Peace Through Strength" and have a strong belief in worldwide interventionism.
If you think the 'MAGA' / 'Trump' party is neo-conservative you literally just are ignoring the entire history, the power struggle (which Trump won) to retake the party from the Neo-Cons, and the fact that the trump admin is largely isolationist and opposed to being the world police.
Don't get me wrong there are still some neo-cons in office and with roles in his admin, but the republican infighting can be summarized as neocon vs MAGA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoconservatism
Words mean things. The MAGE/America First party is focused on non-interventionism, advocate against regime change abroad, with a focus on America and it's interest rather than the endless wars.
You can debate the success or merit of that approach I guess, but the Neo-Cons are very happy to provide foreign aid as it is core to their ideology. They tend to do it via NED while the left uses USAID more (although both use both, but they each have lean in one direction).
Just for fun, I just tried this little experiment you can try to: " CoPilot: Can you rationally describe Trump as a neocon?
CoPilot: No, it would not be accurate to rationally state that Donald Trump is a neoconservative (neocon). Here are some key differences:
Foreign Policy: Neocons: Advocate for interventionist foreign policies, promoting democracy and regime change abroad. Trump: Emphasizes “America First” policies, focusing on non-interventionism, reducing military engagements abroad, and prioritizing domestic issues.
Military Engagement: Neocons: Support maintaining strong international alliances and a significant military presence globally.
Trump: Criticized NATO, praised authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin, and negotiated troop withdrawals from conflict zones like Afghanistan.
Economic Policies: Neocons: Generally support free trade and globalization.
Trump: Advocates for economic nationalism, including tariffs and renegotiating trade deals to favor American interests.
These differences highlight that Trump’s policies and ideology do not align with neoconservative principles. If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask! "
USAID was funding the StarLink deployment in Ukraine and was reexamining the deal[1], likely to try to negotiate a cheaper plan or to reduce the funding. My opinion is that it likely hit his ego a bit and it was a really sweet deal for StarLink, so losing out on it would suck.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/usaid-elon-musk-starlink-probe-ukra...
It had little to do with the contract size. Starlink was being investigated to determine how the Russians were getting/using them.
https://www.newsweek.com/usaid-elon-musk-starlink-probe-ukra...
This raises a potential conflict of interest, as Musk's company was under investigation by USAID shortly before he began calling for the shutdown. Starlink's activity in Eastern Europe has been criticized, with many Russian operatives claiming to have access to Starlink despite Musk's assurances that only Ukraine was using the service.
Additionally, in September last year, Ukrainian forces downed a Russian drone that had a Starlink terminal integrated with its systems, raising questions as to how secure Starlink's operations during the Ukraine war are.
Calling a guy a pedophile repeatedly because you made yourself look stupid getting excited about your cool submarine and how awesome everyone will think you are when you save some kids wasn't really worth much money either. I don't think Musk has the self-control to think like that, honestly.
Unlikely. No one really cares about temporary low-value ad-hoc arrangements like the one between Starlink and USAID. It's too small to matter.
The FAA and EPA have been much much bigger headaches for Musk.
USAID was just a juicy target, since it was essentially a slush fund.
By the look of it, they were investigating how Ukraine use of Starlink provided to them. You make a great journalist. lol.
Thanks. Admittedly "Probably something to do with Starlink" would've been more accurate.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250101100055/https://www.usaid...
That's now removed from the live website.
Point being, it's a little strange USAID was immediately targeted for destruction with extreme prejudice by the same man providing the terminals.
Especially given their contentious history:
I'm not refuting Musk probably hate them like all other regulators or might take advantage of getting into like FAA's operation. It's been obvious on both sides of the aisle. Is USAID corrupt? I think so, foreign money is the most difficult to track. Is FAA technology and management sucks? I believe that, too. Many things can be true at the same time. Since no body can fix it before Musk got his butt in started farting, why are people not benefiting from the kickbacks or inefficiencies complaining is beyond me.
>Is USAID corrupt? I think so, ...
Yeah wow, so corrupt. /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-usaid-official-calls-closur...
An easy win with his rabid xenophobic fan base? A soft target to hurt his opponents and distract from other terrible things they're doing?
They'll work their way up to anti-constitutional attacks on everything else if they get a chance, USAID is their starting point because it's a softer target in a few ways:
1. The people who'll suffer or die from their mal-management will generally be faraway foreigners, as opposed to people voters know.
2. More of the victims have a much more difficult time launching any kind of lawsuit in US courts.
3. It has a small veneer of Presidential-involvement-ness due to its proximity to diplomacy and foreign relations.
4. Like tariffs, being able to withhold aid allows Trump to commit extortion against other countries, much like how he was impeached for extorting Ukraine in his first term.
Ironically USAID might help Americans more than foreign folks, and disproportionately Trump’s own supporters - if the money is being spent to buy American products, particularly food, that is then shipped overseas.
Scenario: You give someone $40B to feed people, and $1B actually feeds them while $39B vanishes into overhead and ideological reprogramming. Then they tell you they need more. If this is success, what does failure look like?
> overhead and ideological reprogramming
I despair at the thought process that crams these two things together.
2.5% overhead would be really good. Most charities don’t come close.
“Ideological reprogramming,” whatever that actually means, would be completely different.
It looks like USAID had 4B of the 40B budget actually reach endpoint users, which would make the overhead closer to 90% [1], not 97.5% like I originally estimated.
[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/67b7a0c4-bf48-8011-9997-41b350dd0b...
Reading this gpt answer: > In fiscal year 2022, nearly 90% of USAID's expenditures were allocated to international contracting partners
How are you figuring that none of that is reaching endpoint users? E.g. I imagine the International Red Cross could be such a partner.
I have my own experience. As a non-American, I know a lot of hungry people. And I have never heard of any help for them from USAID. And who do you think received help from USAID out of all those I have encountered and ever heard about? Only left-leaning democrat's shield "independent" journalists, whose job mostly consist of ideological reprogramming and who now scream all over twitter how Trump destroys their lives. ONLY.
So yes, I don't have any numbers, but I'm used to trusting my own eyes. And what I see (on this particular issue) is way more consistent with what Musk says than with what his opponents say.
> And I have never heard of any help for them from USAID
Personal anecdotes are never a good proof of anything.
> So yes, I don't have any numbers, but I'm used to trusting my own eyes.
So you don't believe in viruses bacteria to name just a few things you can't see with your own eyes?
USAID had many programs, only a number which where about helping the poor, and it's possible those didn't specifically target your country.
E.g. between the poor and hungry people in Moldova (my own native country) and in Sudan USAID would probably chose those in Sudan (what with war and genocide and...). And they might chose to support businesses in Moldova instead (and they did).
I'm not saying it's a perfect program devoid of any corruption. What I'm saying I can come up with as many bogus numbers, and with as many personal anecdotes as the next guy.
And Elon sure as hell resists any attempts to shed light on his activities and claims.
> Only left-leaning democrat's shield "independent" journalists, whose job mostly consist of ideological reprogramming and who now scream all over twitter how Trump destroys their lives. ONLY.
Do you think they do that because they lost funding, or because, say, China or Russia stepped into the void with literally the same support programs?
>Personal anecdotes are never a good proof of anything.
Obviously. But when such anecdotes are consistent with the position of the democratically elected president of USA... What specific reasons do I have to not trust to MY eyes?
>So you don't believe in viruses bacteria to name just a few things you can't see with your own eyes?
No, where did you get that from?
>USAID had many programs, only a number which where about helping the poor, and it's possible those didn't specifically target your country.
Got it. My leftist country were targeted by programs, that promote democrat's left-leaning agenda. Helping poor and hungry - it is for others countries. It’s even surprising, why anyone would hinder such an amazing organization.
>Do you think they do that because they lost funding, or because, say, China or Russia stepped into the void with literally the same support programs?
How are you imagine this? I mean if China or Russia is ready to pay to promote the idea that Trump is the greatest evil on the planet, then maybe.
Less than 10% went to the needy. Most of the rest was either wasteful, political or a chain of NGOs performing kickbacks.
They were funding censorship campaigns on American citizens etc
The only thing "libertarian" about Musk is his extreme interest in his own freedom - everyone else's be damned.
My understanding is USAID was one of those organizations thet refused to pause spending when Trump lawfully asked all agencies to stop spending (it was a 90 day hold, not a outright denial, only congress can do that). Agencies that should adhere to trumps orders went to the top.
what's with people not having beef with USAID? It's done so many crazy and bad things, for example:
USAID funded the hepatitis vaccination drive that the CIA used as a cover for espionage against the bin laden family, leading to polio outbreak in pakistan.
https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/he-led-cia-bin-laden-and-...
Distaste for USAID in any other time would be bipartisan; the Clinton Administration floated shuttering it too. If you go to DC a lot of insiders will say, 'yeah, USAID's got to go'.
don't fool yourself. USAID had the power to stop this.
I postulate a slow, multi-generational decline in critical thinking skills (maybe this is driven, at least partially, by the over abundance of unchallenging media/entertainment) coupled with grievance politics and the bucket-of-crabs mentality that sets in when people start to sense the “pie getting smaller” or at least having reached its peak size.
I didn't bring this up because it would be controversial on this website. I think USAID is a tool for advancing US geopolitical interests aims first and foremost and I would like it to be abolished as well. But someone like Musk wanting it to be shuttered doesn't make sense because these organisation in one way or another advance the interests of US businesses and he would benefit from that as well.
I think USAID could certainly be classified as “soft power.” I think throwing it all out makes little sense in light of the provably good things it did.
I think that any sufficiently big organization has done bad things, this alone shouldn't be enough to close an agency.
However, I'm sure Cia has done, does, and will do much worse things than usaid
Vaccination campaigns are “crazy and bad” because they might be hijacked by the CIA?
I think you’ve identified the wrong culprit there buddy.
not might. Were. A USAID that isn't problematic would have stopped it. It failed to; just one symptom of the problems at USAID.
USAID is a bogeyman agency in far-right conspiracy circles.
Musk gets his world view from far-right conspiracists.
Funny thing is that kind of government foreign aid is the kind of soft-power over smaller countries thing that right-wingers politicians love, or at least used to. Similar to the BS that China pulls with the belt and road initiative (but probably not as bad in most instances).
Basically give/loan money, get international political support back. Use political support to bully international institutions (UN, WTO, WHO, etc) to do what you want.
I guess soft-power is not enough anymore, they want all the power.
Marco Rubio has been very vocal on his support for USAID for years if you want to see what the traditional right wing take on this has been. "Critical to our security" etc. And he is of course in charge of the smoking remains of it now.
International aid is such a cheap way to get soft-power while also being able to, you know, help people. Even if a lot of it is misused or inefficiently used the soft-power is there.
A lot of that soft-power has been spent on getting other countries to be more democratic, which is a good thing. Although I don't doubt it has been used for bad reasons as well.
The funny thing is just how inverted the situation is, for years leftists were saying that this kind of foreign aid is often used to hold small countries hostage. While the right wanted to keep the soft-power the aid gives and claiming this kind of aid is used to keep countries democratic.
Now the right is "screw soft-power" and the left is "think of the children". And in the middle people suffering like always.
The worse part is that a lot/most of that aid is probably of very benign influence, but it is definitely also used for nefarious reasons.
This is dangerous sanewashing.
When Trump attacks USAID (or the CIA or the FBI) from the nationalist authoritarian right, it in no way counterbalances people criticizing it from the left.
In particular, the left criticism of USAID were always "think of the children" because they wanted it to do that more and better. They have remained consistent in that.
It's more likely it came from Trump instead of Elon. Trump is an isolationist and has long complained about money being spent abroad rather than at home.
> U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID): The USAID Inspector General initiated a probe into Starlink satellite terminals provided to the Government of Ukraine
From a House Committee report matching Elon’s actions to agencies he has personal issues with:
https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025.02....