Frankly, this doesn’t matter. What matters is that an unofficial agency of the executive branch is deciding unilaterally - with no oversight - to stop payments that were voted on by Congress. Even if Musk and team were geniuses and doing brilliant work, it would be outside the rule of law.
This feels willfully ignorant. They're not talking about reallocating USAID's budget, they're talking about shutting it down entirely to save money. This is not compatible with claims that they are merely overriding where the money goes.
If DOGE is going to spend the USAID-allocated billions on some other foreign development aid, they are saving zero money. Their claims of cost saving contradict a defense that they aren’t violating the spending laws passed by Congress.
Congress is well within its rights to delegate such authority.
That would of course never make it through Congress.
Counselor, you know better than to beg the question like that. It's disappointing to see such an intelligent person resort to such fallacious arguments.
> Congress is well within its rights to delegate such authority.
Right, Congress told the executive “here’s three billion dollars, spend it on foreign development.” That means the executive decides how that money will be spent. It is entirely within its rights to cancel particular grants. Though eventually it will have to seek rescission as to the $3 billion if it doesn’t use all the money. That’s a long ways away.
And I’m quite confident I’m not going out on a limb when I say line items for “DEI in Serbia” would never make it through congress.
Yes, the executive branch can decide how that money is spent. But it was intended to be spent. DOGE is simply arbitraging the recission period for political capital.
And I’m quite confident I’m not going out on a limb when I say line items for “DEI in Serbia” would never make it through congress.
Why not? You might (or might not) recall the US became heavily involved in a war in the Balkans 30 years ago the point of carrying out an extensive bombing campaign. To the extent that the US has an interest in that region being peaceful and the countries there staying or becoming more aligned with US geopolitical and economic interests, a small subsidy to that end may make strategic sense.
Bombing, peacekeeping, and reconstruction costs for the Balkan war ran into the tens of billions. A few million a year to nurture a more pluralistic civil society in the region (and thereby increase trade flows with the US) seems cheap by comparison.
People already knew Trump was incompetent, other people just called it "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
People already knew Musk was incompetent, other people just called it "Musk Derangement Syndrome"
People were saying DOGE was full of incompetents prior to this, simply judging by their methods (or lack thereof.) They were dismissed as partisans, or using whatever thought-terminating cliche they have on hand.
Knowing this doesn't mean a thing, no one is doing anything about it.
