[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or….

Investigate it properly, and stop the things that are proven to be wrong (using experienced auditors and forensic accountants, rather than a bunch of hackers who don’t like the look of something they don’t understand and don’t try to understand), doing an impact assessment of what that "stop" means, and then proceed with appropriate actions.

https://wapo.st/4idSeP3 (gifted article, not behind paywall)

That WP article, as expected, is not the take down you may think it is. It claims to debunk 11 out of 12 claims of wasteful US government spending.

I'm happy to go through them

1. “$1.5 million to ‘advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities’”

This is mostly accurate. USAID provided $1.5 million to a group called Grupa Izadji, which focuses on creating opportunities for young LGBTQ people.

I would call that totally accurate, not mostly.

2. “$70,000 for production of a ‘DEI musical’ in Ireland”

This is wrong. This was a State Department grant, not USAID.

whether or not it was State Dept or USAID it's still the government. DOGE is not the department of USAID efficiency.

3. “$2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam”

This is wrong. This was for more than electric vehicles. USAID launched a $2.5 million fund that provided awards up to $100,000 to organizations with promising new products, business models, or financing models in Danang or Ho Chi Minh cities.

It's still £2.5M to Vietnam, If I was a US taxpayer I be thinking about $100,000 grants to US small businesses with promising new products.

4. “$47,000 for a ‘transgender opera’ in Colombia”

This is wrong. USAID did not fund this. The White House appears to be referring to a $25,000 State Department grant to Universidad De Los Andes in Bogotá to stage an opera,

Still government money.

5. “$2 million for sex changes and ‘LGBT activism’ in Guatemala”

This is misleading, as it suggests USAID arranged for sex changes. The three-year grant to Asociación Lambda, a Guatemala LGBTIQ+ organization, was to “strengthen trans-led organizations to deliver gender-affirming health care

Still £2M given to Guatemala LGBTIQ+

6. “$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt”


This is wrong. This initiative was launched in the first Trump administration to “increase educational opportunities and strengthen the livelihoods of the people of North Sinai,” according to the citation provided by the White House. The money would “provide access to transportation for rural communities and economic livelihood programming for families.” There is no mention of funding tourism.

Fair , this one appears incorrect.

7. “Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a nonprofit linked to designated terrorist organizations — even AFTER an inspector general launched an investigation”

This is dubious. Allegations of links to Pakistani terror groups have never been proved and have been denied as “baseless and defamatory” by the organization, known as Helping Hand for Relief and Development. Some GOP members of Congress for years have claimed the group has terrorism links

Not proven either way.

8. “Millions to EcoHealth Alliance — which was involved in research at the Wuhan lab”

This lacks context. Before the pandemic, up until 2019, USAID provided $1.1 million to EcoHealth Alliance, an environmental health nonprofit, via a subagreement on virus research. USAID initially awarded a grant to the University of California at Davis to improve monitoring of zoonotic viruses with pandemic potential in African and Asian countries. UC-Davis then hired EcoHealth, which in turn contracted with Wuhan University and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to collect biological samples from roughly 1,500 individuals in the Yunnan province with exposure to bats, other wildlife and domestic animals, according to the Government Accountability Office. The origin of the covid virus has still not been determined. In 2022, USAID awarded EcoHealth $4.7 million for a conservation project to improve farming practices in southwest Liberia — completely unrelated to virus research.

Regardless of context $4.7M to improve farming in South West Liberia? yes. I'm sure the farmers got that.

9. “Hundreds of thousands of meals that went to al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria”

This is highly misleading. As the article cited by the White House makes clear, investigators, including the USAID inspector general, discovered that the head of a nongovernmental organization diverted $9 million intended for Syrian civilians to combatant groups. He was charged in a 12-count indictment unsealed in November

So $9M US taxpayers money was fraudulently embezzled by an NGO, this what DOGE is there for, to ensure better oversight.

10. “Funding to print ‘personalized’ contraceptives birth control devices in developing countries”

This is misleading. USAID gave a grant to the University of Texas at Austin to develop personalized 3D-printed nonhormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs). The grant was part of a program managed by Eastern Virginia Medical School at Old Dominion University and USAID to improve reproductive health by researching low-cost, safe and noninvasive HIV prevention methods as well as contraceptives.

That's not misleading, that's accurate.

11. “Hundreds of millions of dollars to fund ‘irrigation canals, farming equipment, and even fertilizer used to support the unprecedented poppy cultivation and heroin production in Afghanistan,’ benefiting the Taliban”

This is false. USAID never intended to support opium poppy cultivation or the Taliban, and in fact the United States sought to stem it. The White House cites a right-wing news site’s account of a 2018 report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR)

correct, this one is wrong

So out of the 11, it's actually only debunked 2. with 1 unclear either way.

Great objective reporting.