Behind the veil of humanitarian aid, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) doled out billions in taxpayer dollars to engage in left-wing social engineering abroad — from rampant LGBT advocacy to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and tech censorship.
President John F. Kennedy established USAID in 1961 to, in his words, “provide generously of our skills, and our capital and our food to assist the peoples of the less-developed nations to reach their goals in freedom.” The agency, though, has reinterpreted Kennedy’s mission statement to mean that Ecuador suffers from a lack of drag shows, that Peruvian comic books are too light on transgender representation, that the Serbian workplace is insufficiently welcoming to the homosexual community — while also offering social media platforms a host of creative tactics to suppress those who disagree with USAID’s social agenda.
“It’s probably one out of every three grants is totally insane left-wing nonsense … USAID has always been somewhat left, but when the Biden administration started, you can clearly see a huge uptick in spending,” Parker Thayer, who researches federal spending at Capital Research Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The amount of lunatic, fringe grants goes up dramatically. For example, if you go to USAspending[.gov] and search for the keyword ‘transgender,’ the graph is basically a vertical line when you hit 2021. It’s kind of remarkable.”
He also emphasized his discovery of a $13 million grant for an Arabic-language translation of “Sesame Street,” calling it “something else, man.”
These and other programs were the vehicle through which Power went about “working LGBT rights into the DNA of our foreign policy,” a priority she emphasized to Harvard students in 2015 during her tenure as U.S. Ambassador to the United States.
“One of the most common complaints you will get if you go to embassies around the world — from State Department officials and ambassadors and the like — is that USAID is not only not cooperative; they undermine the work that we’re doing in that country,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who assumed control over USAID on Monday, said. He condemned the agency’s more questionable programs as not only a waste of taxpayer dollars, but a diplomatic liability.
“They are supporting programs that upset the host government for whom we’re trying to work with on a broader scale,” he said.
Beyond pro-LGBT funding, former President Joe Biden’s USAID offered social media platforms a “disinformation primer,” a 100-page document providing guidance for countering “disinformation” through increased fact-checking and censorship — policies it said would make platforms more “democratically accountable.”
The document credits some of its content suppression tactics to the Global Engagement Center (GEC), a now-defunct agency that operated under the State Department. To “counter disinformation,” GEC recommended ginning up “moral outrage” against content that “violates [the] sacred value” of what it considers “the truth.”
Biden seemed to heed GEC’s guidance on moral outrage during the height of the pandemic in 2021, accusing Facebook of “killing people” by insufficiently censoring anti-vaccine content on the platform. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg recalled during his Jan. 10 appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” an instance when the Biden administration pressured him to censor a satirical meme about vaccine side effects. Biden later walked back his accusation against Facebook in an interview with CNN.
The USAID-funded primer also recommended “advertiser outreach,” a strategy that would financially throttle agency-disfavored informational outlets by informing advertisers of potential damage to brand reputation.
“[Advertisers] inadvertently are funding and amplifying platforms that disinform. Thus, cutting this financial support found in the ad-tech space would obstruct disinformation actors from spreading messaging online,” the Disinformation Primer reads. “Efforts have been made to inform advertisers of their risks, such as the threat to brand safety by being placed next to objectionable content.”
The document further characterized the legacy media’s recent decline “leading to a loss of information integrity,” which thereby justifies USAID’s efforts to combat those “casting doubt on media.”
“It leads to a loss of information integrity. Online news platforms have disrupted the traditional media landscape. Government officials and journalists are not the sole information gatekeepers anymore … Because traditional information systems are failing, some opinion leaders are casting doubt on media, which, in turn, impacts USAID programming and funding choices,” the document continued.
USAID also faced intense congressional scrutiny in 2023 after allegations emerged that its PREDICT program and subsequent grants to EcoHealth Alliance potentially funneled U.S. taxpayer funds into gain-of-function coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — which raised questions about USAID’s possible role in contributing to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul complained that USAID refused to hand over documents pertaining to the allegations and the agency’s funding habits.
“The response I got from your agency was: ‘USAID will not be providing any documents at this time.’ They’re just unwilling to give documents on scientific grant proposals — we’re paying for it, they’re asking for $745 million more in money. We get no response,” Rand said. “We’re not asking for classified information. We’re not asking for anything unusual. 20 million people died around the world … and you won’t give us the basic information about what grants you’re funding — should we be funding the Academy of Military Medical Research in China?”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Rand’s transparency concerns after announcing he was the USAID’s new acting director Monday, calling the agency “completely uncooperative.”
“They’re one of the most suspicious federal agencies that exists,” Thayer told the DCNF, suggesting the agency’s reputation for being opaque is justified. “It’s kind of a character trait for USAID to be less than transparent.”
Thayer explained that, in his research, USAID is selective in its transparency. The grants he called “complete nonsense,” such as the “Sesame Street” translation, “are very specific about what they’re doing. And the ones that are vaguely humanitarian-sounding are usually written like someone put a sociology textbook through a word randomizer then just took whatever it spat out and put it on the page. They are so full of jargon words that they’re basically incomprehensible, even to people who understand what the jargon words are supposed to mean.”
“I got $1.1 million for a study of youth rural migration in Morocco,” he added. “I literally — I cannot help you in understanding what that could possibly mean. I have no idea what that means.”
Elon Musk, the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), claimed that he and President Donald Trump agreed to shutter the agency entirely during an X Spaces conversation early Monday morning. Rubio emphasized in a Tuesday interview with Fox News that he does not intend to “get rid of foreign aid,” but is considering whether USAID ought to be housed under State Department or remain an autonomous agency.
“This is not about getting rid of foreign aid,” Rubio said. “There are things we do through USAID that we should continue to do, that make sense. And we’ll have to decide: Is that better through the State Department, or is that better through a reformed USAID? That’s the process we’re working through … but they’re completely uncooperative. We had no choice but to take dramatic steps to bring this thing under control.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
