Thank you for this coverage of the USAID, as a (now unemployed) aid sector worker it was great to see this topic.
I think some discussions with current humanitarian and development workers could enhance Reflector’s coverage – I hope you might have further episodes on the topic. For example, the Kenyan woman interviewed. A development sector program person can pick up and explain a bit more nuance. The women referred to herself as a ‘person with a disability’. Your average person living in the foothills of Mt Kenya? Probably not using this type of language. She’s trying to hire other women, specifically. Why? That is an example of how USAID is a soft power that influences the lives, beliefs, and choices of people around the world. The programming generates goodwill and orients people towards US culture and values – in this case, the progressive ideology of the Biden admin. It’s about that as much as actual development outcomes. Yes, there’s a moral question around whether it’s right or wrong to exert this soft power - nowhere will you find people questioning that more than in the aid sector itself with its endless internal debates on decolonization and localization – but there’s no doubt it exists, it’s a primary reason for USAID’s existence, and the loss of this tool weakens America. Not to mention the demolition of the agency and how this lays a blueprint and sows fear throughout the federal government.
There’s also some commentary here around the post-dated cheque. Yep, not great to do that. But it’s also a reflection of how incredibly reliable the US has been seen as a development partner up to now. USAID was an incredibly coveted donor because of how reliable, trustworthy, and transparent the organisation is. Or was. This reputation is now lost. Another aspect of this is actually the bureaucracy of USAID. There are so very many checks and balances in place to ensure money is correctly disbursed that yes, it takes time. People have to wait to get the money until after the point in time they need to spend it, it’s not that conducive to taking advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities when they are present. For this woman, it manifested in writing a post-dated cheque because she doesn’t have any other funds to draw on. For organizations, it means they front the payments from their reserves and get reimbursed by USAID when certain milestones are met. This is the main problem right now – not only has work stopped, but the US has failed to pay its bills and left organisations in the wind, so months of operating costs not being reimbursed. See Devex reporting on this.
It was also a little frustrating to hear the episode fail to debunk the programming examples touted by the Administration in the sound bite early in the episode because I don’t think your average listener understand how inaccurate these example were as a snapshot of USAID programming. I think it was Forbes that went through each program (the opera, the plays etc) and put them in context, with only one being noted as a real problem. I could explain tons of ways I think programming and program budgets are getting out of control with ideologically-inspired activities, but at the core, USAID does a lot of good work.
Similarly, the example of wells being built near chiefs houses. A few points: first, in other cultures, people don’t always see benefits going to leaders as an inherently bad thing (and neither do Americans now?! :/) When you are working within other cultures and governance frameworks, that arrangement could have potentially been the preference of the community. But assuming that was not the case, this example probably wasn’t very recent. Aid as we know it is a somewhat new industry and it’s also one very, very (perhaps too much) dedicated to analysing its own mistakes and changing how it operates. The issue of where the well was located is a well known problem from older programs that is comprehensively addressed nowadays. Programs need to demonstrate how they consult with communities to understand preferences, how they align with Sphere standards which outline how near to each house a water source needs to be, they need to go back and monitor how many people are using the well and get their opinions on how good the well is, they need to test the water and demonstrate some kind of handover plan for it’s ongoing maintenance.
So you can easily see how the bureaucracy expands to manage this. USAID don’t want shitty wells built all over the world, they want good ones. So there are more and more processes in place to manage projects in such a way to ensure good quality. All those steps I listed above need to be planned and explained by each recipient to USAID. USAID experts review the plans and sign off as to whether they meet standards. They also need to review the results of the monitoring and the outcomes. All of this quality control adds bureaucratic processes so it’s a catch 22 – yes, there’s a big bureaucracy but it’s about ensuring the funds are managed to the expected standards to best steward US taxpayer funds.
I could go on and I’ll certainly give the episode a second listen. I do really appreciate the coverage on this topic and hope to hear more. If you want any background on the sector or tips on who to contact, feel free to contact me.
Fantastic episode. This is by far the most comprehensive and balanced analysis of the situation I've come across. It is great that you both have field experience. I'm a former, (disillusioned) aid worker, and people who haven't worked in the field find it hard to understand the complexities of who benefits and how it can entrench existing power dynamics. Although I would be interested to hear the impact on local markets after the pause in the imported food aid. Are local produce prices driven upwards (assuming there's sufficient locally available) and do locals benefit, or does the cost of living spiral? I'm thrilled to hear this discussion, Great work, please keep them coming! A followup perhaps?
It is nice to hear about the positive things. And I agree that aid doesn't really solve the the cause for the need for aid. I'd also recommend the documentary Poverty Inc. The documentary points out the waste and profits. Or misguided help. For example providing technology that when breaks down there is no support. Such as farm equipment. Then there is the lack of infrastructure in many of these developing countries. This where we could make a greater impact. Things like clean water, roads, electricity. And last but no least education to support these initiatives. Our goal should be self sufficiency. Not dependency.
But lets also look at the problems we face here in our own country. The homeless. Mental health issues are on the rise among our youth. Our education system is failing our children. Just to name a few. These should be our highest priority. Every one of the issues listed above is screaming for more resources.
I liked the episode over all, it was definitely informative. The human cost of the USAID freeze is horrendous, and it's right to be horrified by it. But I don't think that Trump and Musk's actions are completely illogical or driven by whims.
All of the executive orders follow the same slash-and-burn strategy, and this strategy is what catapulted Musk into his role as the world's wealthiest man in the first place. The insight there is that bureaucracies are self-perpetuating above all else, because the individuals employed by those bureaucracies are incentivized above all to maintain their jobs and to grow their role. Sudden sharp shocks prevent these employees from developing procedural strategies to defend their jobs, from creating cover stories to white-wash the work they've been doing, and from mobilizing public support to protest them.
The fact of the matter is that federal bureaucracies are staffed by a homogenous class of white collar professionals whose values consistently diverge from those of the median American. The average American would be openly contemptuous of a Colombian transgender opera, and the fact that such a thing is a product of our democratic process is great evidence of PMC oligarchy.
As Musk has said, if you're trying to downsize, you can't treat these people as faceless vessels of the machine, you have to understand them as your "enemy"; they are personally motivated to foil any attempt to shrink or eliminate their role, no matter what that role is. The administration is combining this approach with Trump's art of the deal negotiating strategy– start with a ludicrous offer that would actually be bad for everyone, then use the threat of that disaster to scale down to precisely where you want to be. They've already begun backpedaling on some of the USAID cuts for that reason.
Trump and Musk are both unstable narcissists who could shake society apart at any moment; but they're not idiots, and their approach to political revolution only seems insane because we've been living for 5 or so generations under the most facile ruling class our country has ever seen.
It's entirely possible that the administration intends to build a lot of these institutions back up in a more efficient, responsive manner; that's Musks stated intention. It's also definitely the case that Congress should be the one allocating this sort of funding, and that undemocratic rule by executive fiat has gotten us into this mess more than any other factor.
A final note– the fact that the illustrative USAID case is a businesswoman who bought a machine with money she didn't have in order to support a marginally profitable business is really pitch perfect. You have to wonder how much developmental gridlock has been caused by US money propping up unprofitable businesses and preventing the formation of competitive markets in 3rd world regions. What that $10,000 was, was the United States saying "This woman should be in charge of solving this problem in her community"– her post-dated check seems to me like ample evidence that she was the wrong choice.
I don’t think that public policy should be decided by or really even impacted by individual sob stories, as compelling as they may be. Sad anecdotes do provide context but they also distract from the larger story, IMO.
I am personally pretty incensed by the fact that European countries are now bitching about how our handouts are the only things that keep their countries going when they are usually spending their time insulting our culture and looking down their noses at us. If Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe maybe Europeans should have done something to protect it rather than rely on us to do it.
As another commenter mentioned, this episode was pretty one-sided, which was disappointing. I won’t unsubscribe because I still like the podcast but I do hope future episodes will be more balanced.
Hi Kyle. Sorry to hear you thought we came off as one-sided. I promise that:
We don't see the situation as one-sided (or even two-sided). Like many complex issues, there are multiple perspectives, and most of them are fascinating and valid.
We always strive to report accurately and expose the nuance and depth that's often lacking in news coverage. We have no agenda to push beyond inspiring curiosity and deeper thinking.
For example, I think you’re absolutely right that the EU has relied heavily on the US to lead initiatives like the Ukrainian agricultural project, and I’ve been following the EU's recent statements about the need to take a more prominent role in this and other affairs. What we were aiming to explore is how reformers advocate for slow, incremental changes—changes that would gradually shift responsibilities for services that the US is currently leading. We also wanted to examine how Trump’s theory of change (in this and many other issues) embraces disruptions on a scale that his supporters cheer for, but that causes distress for many others around the world. We’re not here to determine whether that’s right or wrong. I don’t think journalists should act as arbiters of "right" and "wrong." I just think it’s an important and fascinating story.
Thanks for the response - I do certainly appreciate your mission to report but not moralize.
I just felt there wasn’t enough representation of the perspective that the slow incremental approach has been tried and has proven ineffective (on many fronts, not just USAID). From the episode it seems like USAID has only gotten worse over time really. I think the very fact that ‘aid reform’ is something you can get a masters in supports that point - it seems worth exploring that even among the reformers there seem to be counterproductive incentives.
I’m sure my own biases are informing my impression but I do think having someone on who didn’t feel the need to caveat that they weren’t endorsing the Trump/Musk method would have helped.
I am very disappointed again in this one-sided commentary. You could, at least, have mentioned the waiver for "life-saving humanitarian assistance" which means aid that goes toward "core life-saving medicine, medical services, food, shelter, and subsistence assistance, as well as supplies and reasonable administrative costs as necessary to deliver such assistance." https://www.state.gov/emergency-humanitarian-waiver-to-foreign-assistance-pause/
Instead, the listener is deceived into believing that all aid has halted, that people in Sudan will now starve, etc.
After this and the mainstream media episode, you've lost a listener. Best of luck.
Well, it’s sad to see you go, but please know that we certainly didn’t intend to come off as one-sided. In fact, our core mission is to tell stories and publish interviews that highlight how the world is far more complicated than one-sided or even two-sided perspectives can ever fully capture. I thought the mainstream media episode was a good example of this: an interview and debate with three media members who have different views on why people don’t trust us. You may not have agreed with Ben or Nayeema's perspectives (as I clearly didn’t at times), but I believe it’s valuable to hear them, to sincerely try to understand them, and to see how those views are shaping the world.
Similarly here: Some reformers have been advocating for us to make massive changes in our foreign aid programs but they want to move methodically as responsibilities change hands. President Trump's theory of change is comfortable with quick action. Seeing where each are coming from and what might be the consequences of their policies is worth our time, no matter you views on who is right or wrong.
Aid has been halted because all agencies were issued stop work orders on 24 Jan, which means they cannot operate. The waiver process isn't working effectively because there are not enough USAID staff left to process waivers and for programs that get them, the financial disbursements are still frozen. So yes, aid is halted. You can see coverage about this in Devex and The New Humanitarian.
I hope you listened to the entire episode. Since the person interviewed works for NPR, I was expecting a very one sided perspective which, sadly, I've come to expect from NPR. However, I was pleasantly surprised to hear concerns about corruption and misappropriation of aid addressed, though it was downplayed. Still, Gregory Warner's bias came through loud and clear. It was nice try, Andy, but it's what you had to work with. It might have been nice to have someone with a different view to balance out the discussion.
To believe that the purpose of foreign aid is to help the needy of other countries is naive. The primary purpose is and always has been to push a political agenda, to exert control on the local politicians and as a propaganda tool both for the sender and the recipient. It's always about politics. And with Trump's move to shut it down, it still is.
My nephew, a former Marine, had served as an embassy guard in a small African country. He told stories of people from the NGOs driving around the villages in their SUVs and acting as if they were God's gift to poor Africans. An arrogant bunch.
He also talked about a CIA agent who told him that if they ran in to each other at the local bar, my nephew should pretend they don't know each other. My nephew replied, "Dude, we'd be the only white guys in the bar!"
Thank you for this coverage of the USAID, as a (now unemployed) aid sector worker it was great to see this topic.
I think some discussions with current humanitarian and development workers could enhance Reflector’s coverage – I hope you might have further episodes on the topic. For example, the Kenyan woman interviewed. A development sector program person can pick up and explain a bit more nuance. The women referred to herself as a ‘person with a disability’. Your average person living in the foothills of Mt Kenya? Probably not using this type of language. She’s trying to hire other women, specifically. Why? That is an example of how USAID is a soft power that influences the lives, beliefs, and choices of people around the world. The programming generates goodwill and orients people towards US culture and values – in this case, the progressive ideology of the Biden admin. It’s about that as much as actual development outcomes. Yes, there’s a moral question around whether it’s right or wrong to exert this soft power - nowhere will you find people questioning that more than in the aid sector itself with its endless internal debates on decolonization and localization – but there’s no doubt it exists, it’s a primary reason for USAID’s existence, and the loss of this tool weakens America. Not to mention the demolition of the agency and how this lays a blueprint and sows fear throughout the federal government.
There’s also some commentary here around the post-dated cheque. Yep, not great to do that. But it’s also a reflection of how incredibly reliable the US has been seen as a development partner up to now. USAID was an incredibly coveted donor because of how reliable, trustworthy, and transparent the organisation is. Or was. This reputation is now lost. Another aspect of this is actually the bureaucracy of USAID. There are so very many checks and balances in place to ensure money is correctly disbursed that yes, it takes time. People have to wait to get the money until after the point in time they need to spend it, it’s not that conducive to taking advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities when they are present. For this woman, it manifested in writing a post-dated cheque because she doesn’t have any other funds to draw on. For organizations, it means they front the payments from their reserves and get reimbursed by USAID when certain milestones are met. This is the main problem right now – not only has work stopped, but the US has failed to pay its bills and left organisations in the wind, so months of operating costs not being reimbursed. See Devex reporting on this.
It was also a little frustrating to hear the episode fail to debunk the programming examples touted by the Administration in the sound bite early in the episode because I don’t think your average listener understand how inaccurate these example were as a snapshot of USAID programming. I think it was Forbes that went through each program (the opera, the plays etc) and put them in context, with only one being noted as a real problem. I could explain tons of ways I think programming and program budgets are getting out of control with ideologically-inspired activities, but at the core, USAID does a lot of good work.
Similarly, the example of wells being built near chiefs houses. A few points: first, in other cultures, people don’t always see benefits going to leaders as an inherently bad thing (and neither do Americans now?! :/) When you are working within other cultures and governance frameworks, that arrangement could have potentially been the preference of the community. But assuming that was not the case, this example probably wasn’t very recent. Aid as we know it is a somewhat new industry and it’s also one very, very (perhaps too much) dedicated to analysing its own mistakes and changing how it operates. The issue of where the well was located is a well known problem from older programs that is comprehensively addressed nowadays. Programs need to demonstrate how they consult with communities to understand preferences, how they align with Sphere standards which outline how near to each house a water source needs to be, they need to go back and monitor how many people are using the well and get their opinions on how good the well is, they need to test the water and demonstrate some kind of handover plan for it’s ongoing maintenance.
So you can easily see how the bureaucracy expands to manage this. USAID don’t want shitty wells built all over the world, they want good ones. So there are more and more processes in place to manage projects in such a way to ensure good quality. All those steps I listed above need to be planned and explained by each recipient to USAID. USAID experts review the plans and sign off as to whether they meet standards. They also need to review the results of the monitoring and the outcomes. All of this quality control adds bureaucratic processes so it’s a catch 22 – yes, there’s a big bureaucracy but it’s about ensuring the funds are managed to the expected standards to best steward US taxpayer funds.
I could go on and I’ll certainly give the episode a second listen. I do really appreciate the coverage on this topic and hope to hear more. If you want any background on the sector or tips on who to contact, feel free to contact me.
Fantastic episode. This is by far the most comprehensive and balanced analysis of the situation I've come across. It is great that you both have field experience. I'm a former, (disillusioned) aid worker, and people who haven't worked in the field find it hard to understand the complexities of who benefits and how it can entrench existing power dynamics. Although I would be interested to hear the impact on local markets after the pause in the imported food aid. Are local produce prices driven upwards (assuming there's sufficient locally available) and do locals benefit, or does the cost of living spiral? I'm thrilled to hear this discussion, Great work, please keep them coming! A followup perhaps?
I enjoyed this episode
This was SO well done — thanks for the just-right 101 for a listener like me, with characteristic evenhandedness, proper history and context.
It is nice to hear about the positive things. And I agree that aid doesn't really solve the the cause for the need for aid. I'd also recommend the documentary Poverty Inc. The documentary points out the waste and profits. Or misguided help. For example providing technology that when breaks down there is no support. Such as farm equipment. Then there is the lack of infrastructure in many of these developing countries. This where we could make a greater impact. Things like clean water, roads, electricity. And last but no least education to support these initiatives. Our goal should be self sufficiency. Not dependency.
But lets also look at the problems we face here in our own country. The homeless. Mental health issues are on the rise among our youth. Our education system is failing our children. Just to name a few. These should be our highest priority. Every one of the issues listed above is screaming for more resources.
I liked the episode over all, it was definitely informative. The human cost of the USAID freeze is horrendous, and it's right to be horrified by it. But I don't think that Trump and Musk's actions are completely illogical or driven by whims.
All of the executive orders follow the same slash-and-burn strategy, and this strategy is what catapulted Musk into his role as the world's wealthiest man in the first place. The insight there is that bureaucracies are self-perpetuating above all else, because the individuals employed by those bureaucracies are incentivized above all to maintain their jobs and to grow their role. Sudden sharp shocks prevent these employees from developing procedural strategies to defend their jobs, from creating cover stories to white-wash the work they've been doing, and from mobilizing public support to protest them.
The fact of the matter is that federal bureaucracies are staffed by a homogenous class of white collar professionals whose values consistently diverge from those of the median American. The average American would be openly contemptuous of a Colombian transgender opera, and the fact that such a thing is a product of our democratic process is great evidence of PMC oligarchy.
As Musk has said, if you're trying to downsize, you can't treat these people as faceless vessels of the machine, you have to understand them as your "enemy"; they are personally motivated to foil any attempt to shrink or eliminate their role, no matter what that role is. The administration is combining this approach with Trump's art of the deal negotiating strategy– start with a ludicrous offer that would actually be bad for everyone, then use the threat of that disaster to scale down to precisely where you want to be. They've already begun backpedaling on some of the USAID cuts for that reason.
Trump and Musk are both unstable narcissists who could shake society apart at any moment; but they're not idiots, and their approach to political revolution only seems insane because we've been living for 5 or so generations under the most facile ruling class our country has ever seen.
It's entirely possible that the administration intends to build a lot of these institutions back up in a more efficient, responsive manner; that's Musks stated intention. It's also definitely the case that Congress should be the one allocating this sort of funding, and that undemocratic rule by executive fiat has gotten us into this mess more than any other factor.
A final note– the fact that the illustrative USAID case is a businesswoman who bought a machine with money she didn't have in order to support a marginally profitable business is really pitch perfect. You have to wonder how much developmental gridlock has been caused by US money propping up unprofitable businesses and preventing the formation of competitive markets in 3rd world regions. What that $10,000 was, was the United States saying "This woman should be in charge of solving this problem in her community"– her post-dated check seems to me like ample evidence that she was the wrong choice.
I don’t think that public policy should be decided by or really even impacted by individual sob stories, as compelling as they may be. Sad anecdotes do provide context but they also distract from the larger story, IMO.
I am personally pretty incensed by the fact that European countries are now bitching about how our handouts are the only things that keep their countries going when they are usually spending their time insulting our culture and looking down their noses at us. If Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe maybe Europeans should have done something to protect it rather than rely on us to do it.
As another commenter mentioned, this episode was pretty one-sided, which was disappointing. I won’t unsubscribe because I still like the podcast but I do hope future episodes will be more balanced.
Hi Kyle. Sorry to hear you thought we came off as one-sided. I promise that:
We don't see the situation as one-sided (or even two-sided). Like many complex issues, there are multiple perspectives, and most of them are fascinating and valid.
We always strive to report accurately and expose the nuance and depth that's often lacking in news coverage. We have no agenda to push beyond inspiring curiosity and deeper thinking.
For example, I think you’re absolutely right that the EU has relied heavily on the US to lead initiatives like the Ukrainian agricultural project, and I’ve been following the EU's recent statements about the need to take a more prominent role in this and other affairs. What we were aiming to explore is how reformers advocate for slow, incremental changes—changes that would gradually shift responsibilities for services that the US is currently leading. We also wanted to examine how Trump’s theory of change (in this and many other issues) embraces disruptions on a scale that his supporters cheer for, but that causes distress for many others around the world. We’re not here to determine whether that’s right or wrong. I don’t think journalists should act as arbiters of "right" and "wrong." I just think it’s an important and fascinating story.
Thanks for the response - I do certainly appreciate your mission to report but not moralize.
I just felt there wasn’t enough representation of the perspective that the slow incremental approach has been tried and has proven ineffective (on many fronts, not just USAID). From the episode it seems like USAID has only gotten worse over time really. I think the very fact that ‘aid reform’ is something you can get a masters in supports that point - it seems worth exploring that even among the reformers there seem to be counterproductive incentives.
I’m sure my own biases are informing my impression but I do think having someone on who didn’t feel the need to caveat that they weren’t endorsing the Trump/Musk method would have helped.
I am very disappointed again in this one-sided commentary. You could, at least, have mentioned the waiver for "life-saving humanitarian assistance" which means aid that goes toward "core life-saving medicine, medical services, food, shelter, and subsistence assistance, as well as supplies and reasonable administrative costs as necessary to deliver such assistance." https://www.state.gov/emergency-humanitarian-waiver-to-foreign-assistance-pause/
Instead, the listener is deceived into believing that all aid has halted, that people in Sudan will now starve, etc.
After this and the mainstream media episode, you've lost a listener. Best of luck.
Well, it’s sad to see you go, but please know that we certainly didn’t intend to come off as one-sided. In fact, our core mission is to tell stories and publish interviews that highlight how the world is far more complicated than one-sided or even two-sided perspectives can ever fully capture. I thought the mainstream media episode was a good example of this: an interview and debate with three media members who have different views on why people don’t trust us. You may not have agreed with Ben or Nayeema's perspectives (as I clearly didn’t at times), but I believe it’s valuable to hear them, to sincerely try to understand them, and to see how those views are shaping the world.
Similarly here: Some reformers have been advocating for us to make massive changes in our foreign aid programs but they want to move methodically as responsibilities change hands. President Trump's theory of change is comfortable with quick action. Seeing where each are coming from and what might be the consequences of their policies is worth our time, no matter you views on who is right or wrong.
Aid has been halted because all agencies were issued stop work orders on 24 Jan, which means they cannot operate. The waiver process isn't working effectively because there are not enough USAID staff left to process waivers and for programs that get them, the financial disbursements are still frozen. So yes, aid is halted. You can see coverage about this in Devex and The New Humanitarian.
I hope you listened to the entire episode. Since the person interviewed works for NPR, I was expecting a very one sided perspective which, sadly, I've come to expect from NPR. However, I was pleasantly surprised to hear concerns about corruption and misappropriation of aid addressed, though it was downplayed. Still, Gregory Warner's bias came through loud and clear. It was nice try, Andy, but it's what you had to work with. It might have been nice to have someone with a different view to balance out the discussion.
To believe that the purpose of foreign aid is to help the needy of other countries is naive. The primary purpose is and always has been to push a political agenda, to exert control on the local politicians and as a propaganda tool both for the sender and the recipient. It's always about politics. And with Trump's move to shut it down, it still is.
My nephew, a former Marine, had served as an embassy guard in a small African country. He told stories of people from the NGOs driving around the villages in their SUVs and acting as if they were God's gift to poor Africans. An arrogant bunch.
He also talked about a CIA agent who told him that if they ran in to each other at the local bar, my nephew should pretend they don't know each other. My nephew replied, "Dude, we'd be the only white guys in the bar!"
I'll have more to say in a separate comment.