Connect with us

Business

90% of Ukraine news outlets get funding from USAID: new report

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

USAID, targeted by Elon Musk and Donald Trump for cuts, is a heavy funder of news outlets in Ukraine, according to a new report. The agency has come under scrutiny for wasteful and ideological projects.

The United States Aid for International Development (USAID) provides funds to 90 percent of Ukrainian news outlets, according to a new report from the Columbia Journalism Review and Reporters Without Borders.

While much focus has been on USAID and other federal entities subscribing to news outlets such as Politico, a broader issue may be taxpayers paying for news coverage in foreign countries.

Working off data from Reporters Without Borders, the Columbia Journalism Review reported that “USAID had boasted of supporting more than six thousand journalists, around seven hundred independent newsrooms, and nearly three hundred media-focused civil society groups in thirty or so countries.”

The Trump administration reportedly froze $268 million for these endeavors.

“RSF also noted the harsh effect on journalism in Ukraine, where 90 percent of news organizations rely on USAID funding, some very heavily,” the Journalism Review reported.

The United States has spent nearly $66 billion on direct military assistance to Ukraine in its ongoing war against Russia. Taxpayers have sent another $120 billion or so to the country in other foreign aid, according to an inspector general report current as of September 30, 2024.

The journalism groups released the reports ostensibly to defend U.S. funding of outlets.

On a related issue, the Trump administration is also cutting off taxpayer-funded subscriptions that government employees set up with news outlets.

“I can confirm that the more than $8 million taxpayer dollars that have gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico on the American taxpayers’ dime will no longer be happening,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a press conference yesterday.

“The DOGE team is working on canceling those payments now,” she said.

She stated further:

Again, this is a whole-of-government effort to ensure that we are going line by line when it comes to the federal government’s books. And this president and his team are making decisions across the board on ‘Do these receipts serve the interests of the American people? Is this a good use of the American taxpayers’ money? If it is not, that funding will no longer be sent abroad and American taxpayers will be seeing significant savings because of that effort.

Conservatives celebrated the news.

“The Federal Government is not a good steward of your tax dollars,” Josh Tanner, an Idaho state representative, wrote on X. “They spent $8 Million on propaganda media. This is even more of a reason for Idaho tax dollars to be accounted for, applied appropriately, and reduced where necessary. The Fed has failed, our state must succeed.”

“Even if the govt money to Politico wasn’t an outright grant, providing $8 Million in taxpayers funds for ‘subscriptions’ to a super Lefty publication is just absurd and abusive to hard-working Americans!” conservative commentator Steve Cortes wrote.

payroll issue with Politico‘s payroll was initially blamed on the funding freeze, though the company said it was a “technical error” that created the problem.

USAID under scrutiny, uses tax dollars to promote DEI around the world

The Trump administration has closed, at least temporarily, USAID. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now the administrator of the agency, which has funded a variety of ideological projects across the globe.

“USAID has a history of ignoring [the national interest of the United States] and deciding that they’re a global charity. These are not donor dollars, these are taxpayer dollars,” Secretary Rubio said recently.

Leavitt highlighted some of the ideological and wasteful projects funded through this agency, including “$1.5 million to advance DEI in Serbia’s workforce.”

The agency has also been used to pressure conservative, poorer countries into adopting pro-abortion policies, as LifeSiteNews previously reported.

State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce highlighted other wasteful projects in a post on X.

She listed projects the freeze had stopped, including “$16 million in unjustified funding for institutional contractors in the gender development offices,” “$4 million to unjustified funding for the Center for Climate-Positive Development,” and “$600,000 to fund technical assistance for family planning in Latin America.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Americans rallying behind Trump’s tariffs

Published on

The Trump administration’s new tariffs are working:

The European Union will delay tariffs on U.S. exports into the trading bloc in response to the imposition of tariffs on European aluminum and steal, a measure announced in February by the White House as a part of an overhaul of the U.S. trade policies.

Instead of taking effect March 12, these tariffs will not apply until “mid-April”, according to a European official interviewed by The Hill.

This is not the first time the EU has responded this way to U.S. tariff measures. It happened already last time Trump was in office. One of the reasons why Brussels is so accommodative is that the European Parliament emphasized negotiations already back in February. Furthermore, as Forbes notes,

The U.S. economy is the largest in the world, and many countries rely on American consumers to buy their goods. By import tariffs, the U.S. can pressure trading partners into more favorable deals and protect domestic industries from unfair competition.

More on unfair competition in a moment. First, it is important to note that Trump did not start this trade skirmish. Please note what IndustryWeek reported back in 2018:

Trump points to U.S. auto exports to Europe, saying they are taxed at a higher rate than European exports to the United States. Here, facts do offer Trump some support: U.S. autos face duties of 10% while European cars are subject to dugies of only 2.5% in the United States.

They also noted some nuances, e.g., that the United States applies a higher tariff on light trucks, presumably to defend the most profitable vehicles rolling out of U.S. based manufacturing plants. Nevertheless, the story that most media outlets do not tell is that Europe has a history of putting tariffs on U.S. exports to a greater extent than tariffs are applied in the opposite direction.

Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Facts notwithstanding, this trade war has caught media attention and is reaching ridiculous proportions. According to CNBC,

Auto stocks are digesting President Donald Trump’s annoncement that he would place 25% tariffs on “all cars that are not made in the United Sates,” as well as certain automobile parts. … Shares of the “Detroit Three” all fell.

They also explain that GM took a particularly hard beating, and that Ferrari is going to use the tariffs as a reason to raise prices by ten percent. This sounds dramatic, but keep in mind that stocks fly up and down with impressive amplitude; what was lost yesterday can come back with a bonus tomorrow. As for Ferrari, a ten-percent price hike is basically meaningless since these cars are often sold in highly customized, individual negotiations before they are even produced.

Despite the media hype, these tariffs will not last the year. One reason is the retaliatory nature in President Trump’s tariffs, which—again—has already caught the attention of the Europeans and brought them to the negotiation table. We can debate whether or not his tactics are the best in order to create more fair trade terms between the United States and our trading partners, but there is no question that Trump’s methods have caught the attention of the powers that be (which include Mexico and Canada).

There is another reason why I do not see this tariffs tit-for-tat continuing for much longer. The European economy is in bad shape, especially compared to the U.S. economy. With European corporations already signaling increased direct investment in the U.S. economy, Europe is holding the short end of this stick.

But the bad news for the Europeans does not stop there. They are at an intrinsic disadvantage going into a tariffs-based trade war. The EU has a “tariff” of sorts that we do not have, namely the value-added tax, VAT. Shiphub.co has a succinct summary of how the VAT affects trade:

When importing (into the European Union), VAT should be taken into account. … VAT is calculated based on the customs value (the good’s value and transport costs … ) plus the due duty amount.

The term “duty” here, of course, refers to trade tariffs. This means that when tariffs go up, the VAT surcharge goes up as well. Aside from creating a tax-on-tax problem, this also means that the inflationary effect from U.S. imports is significantly stronger than it is on EU imports to the United States—even when tariffs are equal.

If the U.S. government wanted to, they could include the tax-on-tax effect of the VAT when assessing the effective EU tariffs on imports from the United States. This would quickly expand the tit-for-tat tariff war, with Europe at an escalating disadvantage.

For these reasons, I do not see how this “trade war” will continue beyond the summer, but even that is a pessimistic outlook.

Before I close this tariff topic and declare it a weekend, let me also mention that the use of tariffs in trade war is neither a new nor an unusual tactic. Check out this little brochure from the Directorate-General for Trade under the European Commission’:

Trade defence instruments, such as anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties, are ways of protecting European production against international trade distortions.

What they refer to as “defence instruments” are primarily tariffs on imports. In a separate report the Directorate lists no fewer than 63 trade-war cases where the EU imposes tariffs to punish a country for unfair trade tactics.

Trade what, and what countries, you wonder? Sweet corn from Thailand, fused alumina from China, biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, malleable tube fittings from China and Thailand, epoxy resins from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand… and lots and lots of tableware from China.

Like most people, I would prefer a world without taxes and tariffs, and the closer we can get to zero on either of those, the better. But until we get there, we should take a deep breath in the face of the media hype and trust our president on this one.

Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Business

Kennedy to cut 10,000 HHS employees to reduce ‘bureaucratic sprawl’

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

The changes are expected to reduce the agency’s headcount from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a significant restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday in a move to streamline the huge federal agency and cut costs.

Kennedy plans to trim about 10,000 employees from the agency’s workforce in addition to employees who left as part of a Deferred Resignation Program, similar to a buy out, earlier this year. The move is expected to save about $1.8 billion.

Kennedy said the restructuring won’t affect the agency’s critical services. When combined with HHS’ other efforts, including early retirement, the changes are expected to reduce the agency’s headcount from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees. The restructuring will also align the department with Kennedy’s goals for a healthier U.S. population.

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy said. “This Department will do more – a lot more – at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”

Kennedy also said the restructuring of the department’s 28 divisions will get rid of redundant units, consolidating them into “15 new divisions, including a new Administration for a Healthy America, or AHA, and will centralize core functions such as Human Resources, Information Technology, Procurement, External Affairs, and Policy.” Regional offices will be reduced from 10 to 5.

The overhaul will implement the new “HHS priority of ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins. These priorities will be reflected in the reorganization of HHS.”

Kennedy also said the restructuring would improve taxpayers’ experience with HHS by making the agency more responsive and efficient. He also said the changes would ensure that Medicare, Medicaid, and other essential health services remain intact.

The Administration for a Healthy America will combine multiple agencies – the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Health Resources and Services Administration, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health — into a single, unified entity, Kennedy said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will get the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, which is responsible for national disaster and public health emergency response.

“Over time, bureaucracies like HHS become wasteful and inefficient even when most of their staff are dedicated and competent civil servants,” Kennedy said. “This overhaul will be a win-win for taxpayers and for those that HHS serves.”

Among the cuts: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will shed about 3,500 full-time employees. Officials said the reduction won’t affect drug, medical device, or food reviewers, nor will it impact inspectors. The CDC will drop about 2,400 employees. The National Institutes of Health will cut about 1,200 employees. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will cut about 300 employees. The reorganization won’t affect Medicare and Medicaid services, officials said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X