
USAID whistleblower to Congress: Don't rubberstamp DOGE's destruction
The dust is settling on the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, providing the first clear view of DOGE's work product. The results are devastating for the mission of helping our allies become healthier and wealthier — a mission that benefits Americans by controlling disease, strengthening alliances and growing markets for our products.
The reckless destruction of USAID is in fact a travesty for those who want more efficiency in government, because DOGE's methods and results discredited a rare opportunity to substantially cut red tape while improving services.
I'm a former USAID employee who worked with colleagues to improve the agency from within, including by filing a whistleblower lawsuit. I and many talented colleagues were then laid off in January as part of Elon Musk's woodchipper assault on the agency.
After the ensuing two-month 'review' — in which methods and criteria were kept hidden — the State Department released its list of 5,341 cancelled awards, totaling $28.8 billion in planned aid, and submitted to Congress plans to absorb USAID's remaining portfolio. The abrupt stoppage of so much aid for the stated reason of 'the convenience' of the government, rather than performance or strategic value, is causing well-documented damage to human lives and to America's reputation, with disease outbreaks and hunger predictably increasing.
Worse, the inflicted pain comes with little gain; the savings total around two weeks of Pentagon spending. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish. When retired four-star Gen. James Mattis said, 'If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition,' he could have been foreshadowing the consequences of DOGE's destruction of USAID.
All government agencies need some reform, and my former USAID colleagues and I battled our fair share of bureaucracy to get the job done. But its valuable mission needed rehabilitation, not decapitation.
The unfolding damage can now only be mitigated if Congress adheres to its constitutional duty to check executive branch overreach. The courts are proving too slow. While the slim Republican congressional majority may feel pressure to rubberstamp the administration's proposals at USAID and elsewhere, that would cement irreparable harm and set a dangerous precedent.
Around 60 percent of Americans once supported the idea of DOGE, but 60 percent now disapprove of its execution. While the administration apparently believed it needed to 'move fast and break things,' an overhaul conducted so quickly has predictably proved inexact, with extensive collateral damage.
Chainsaws may have their purpose, but not in billion-dollar budgets. It takes work to distinguish good contracts from lesser ones, talented employees from ineffective ones. Thousands of gifted Americans, along with 10,000 foreign nationals who helped USAID do hard work in difficult countries, will be fired by August despite often stellar performance. Undeserved unemployment is cruel and bad policy.
The firing of Pete Marocco, a MAGA loyalist, as the acting USAID lead in April — his fifth departure from Trump administration jobs after only a few months — may signal quiet recognition that the overhaul went too far and needs to be reeled in. As Congress considers whether to intervene in USAID's reform, it can begin with one of the least divisive of all issues: child survival.
The numbers reveal how problematic DOGE's results are at USAID. Each year, around 5 million children under age five die globally from preventable causes, such as unsafe childbirth, malaria, malnutrition, dehydration after diarrhea or pneumonia preventable by vaccines or treatable by antibiotics. For example, over 100,000 children still die every year from measles, and around 2.5 million annual measles deaths globally are prevented by vaccination. Preventable child deaths are much larger than the 630,000 people globally who still die from HIV/AIDS every year.
Yet the Trump administration proposes to eliminate nearly $1.75 billion annual funding for maternal and child health programs, including its highly leveraged support for vaccines, and abruptly terminated over 90 percent of existing work for these vulnerable populations. Meanwhile, the proposed cuts to programs combating HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria are certainly damaging, with widespread disruptions and layoffs already reported that put at risk the tremendous gains made against these diseases, but are at least not complete.
Why the selective eliminations? Simple partisanship and inattention to detail are the most straightforward explanations, which again signal why Congress must step in. America's current HIV, tuberculosis and malaria programs began during the second Bush administration, while our maternal and child health programs date to the 1980s. Since 2004, America's HIV programs saved the lives of more than 25 million people living with the disease, and prevented at least 6 million children from being born with HIV. These are astonishing and cost-effective achievements worthy of continued taxpayer support.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has noted that America makes friends when we prevent people and their children from dying. Instead, DOGE almost literally threw the baby out with the bathwater at USAID.
The administration also canceled most of the awards that help developing countries protect endangered species. Supporting biodiversity and sustainable agriculture in poor countries is morally right, but it also benefits America. In the aftermath of the latest Ebola outbreak in Uganda, evidence is mounting that destroying wild habitats is associated with that disease's emergence as a human pathogen. As we have learned from Ebola and COVID-19, thousands of viruses are circulating in wildlife that could suddenly upend human lives.
The Trump administration is running amok with a chainsaw, and the costs are becoming clear. Congress must reign in the executive branch's overreach, not rubberstamp it.
Rob Cohen worked at USAID for eight years as an epidemiologist, including serving as acting deputy chief of staff of the USAID Global Health Bureau in 2020. He filed a successful whistleblower lawsuit against USAID in 2022.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Musk says Tesla's robotaxi service to 'tentatively' launch in Austin on June 22
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Elon Musk says Tesla is 'tentatively' set to begin providing robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, on June 22. In a post on his X social media platform, Musk said the date could change because Tesla is 'being super paranoid about safety.' Investors, Wall Street analysts and Tesla enthusiasts have been anticipating the rollout of the driverless cabs since Musk said earlier this year that the service would launch in Austin sometime in June. Last month, Musk told CNBC that the taxis will be remotely monitored at first and 'geofenced' to certain areas of the city deemed the safest to navigate. He said he expected to initially run 10 or so taxis, increase that number rapidly and start offering the service in Los Angeles, San Antonio, San Francisco and other cities. Musk has been promising fully autonomous, self-driving vehicles 'next year' for a decade, but the pressure is on now as Tesla actually begins to operate a self-driving taxi service. Sales of Tesla's electric vehicles have sagged due to increased competition, the retooling of its most popular car, the Model Y, and the fallout from Musk's turn to politics. The Austin rollout also comes after Musk had a public blowup with President Donald Trump over the administration's tax bill. Some analysts have expressed concern that Trump could retaliate by encouraging federal safety regulators to to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
French Tesla customers sue over brand becoming 'extreme right'
Around 10 French clients with leases on Teslas are suing the US carmaker, run by Elon Musk, because they consider the vehicles to be "extreme-right" symbols, the law firm representing them said on Wednesday. They feel they suffered "direct and concrete" damage from the way Teslas are now associated with "Elon Musk's actions", the GKA law firm said. They are demanding the Paris commercial court order their lease contracts be terminated and legal costs reimbursed, it said in a statement, signed by lawyers Patrick Klugman and Ivan Terel. The lawsuit comes as Tesla sales in the European Union have almost halved since the beginning of the year, a slump attributed to Musk's political activities. Those activities include him -- until last week -- standing firmly with US President Donald Trump, and overseeing efforts to cut down US departments and agencies. He has also lent public support to Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, and came under criticism for making a repeated gesture with an out-thrust arm interpreted by many historians to be a Nazi salute. "Because of Elon Musk's actions... Tesla branded vehicles have become strong political symbols and now appear to be veritable extreme-right 'totems', to the dismay of those who acquired them with the sole aim of possessing an innovative and ecological vehicle," GKA said in a statement. The perception of the Teslas they leased "prevents them from fully enjoying their car", it said. Most of the leases run for four years, with an option at the end to buy the vehicle. Tesla cars in Europe and elsewhere have been targeted by vandals, with some drivers reporting they have been insulted for using what is sometimes called on social media a "swasti-car". Several owners have taken to putting stickers on their Teslas reading "I bought this before Elon went crazy". "The situation is both unexpected and impossible for French Tesla owners," Klugman told AFP. "Musk's political positions have interrupted enjoyment" of the vehicles, and "we believe that Mr Musk owes these buyers the peaceful possession of the thing sold", he said. Contacted by AFP for comment, Tesla did not immediately respond. tsz/jum/rmb/ach


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Ciattarelli and Sherrill Face Off in NJ Governor's Race: What Polls Say
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. New Jersey voters hit the polls on Tuesday and cast their ballots in the state's primary races ahead of this year's gubernatorial election. Jack Ciattarelli, a former New Jersey state representative and one-time critic turned supporter of President Donald Trump, won the Republican Party's nomination for governor. On the Democratic side, U.S. Representative Mikie Sherrill snagged the party's nomination. With primaries in the rearview mirror, New Jersey's gubernatorial race kicks into high gear, with Sherrill pulling out all the stops to keep the governor's seat in Democrats' hands and Ciattarelli leveraging Trump's backing to flip it red. Newsweek reached out to Ciattarelli and Sherrill's campaigns for comment via LinkedIn and email, respectively, on Tuesday. Why It Matters New Jersey is among only two states holding gubernatorial elections this year, alongside Virginia, meaning November's election in the Garden State will be one of the first and earliest tests of Trump's agenda. With New Jersey's incumbent Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, being term-limited, both parties see the contest as a crucial bellwether, especially after a competitive 2021 governor's election in which Ciattarelli lost to Murphy by a narrow margin. Supporters await New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli at his watch party on November 2, 2021, in Bridgewater, New Jersey. (Photo by) Supporters await New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli at his watch party on November 2, 2021, in Bridgewater, New Jersey. (Photo by) What To Know According to the Associated Press, Ciattarelli clinched the GOP nomination for governor at 8:17 p.m. ET Tuesday and Sherrill was projected to win the Democratic nomination at 8:39 p.m. New Jersey has voted for a Democrat in every presidential election since 1988. Although Trump lost the state in November, he significantly narrowed the gap between the two parties, losing to then-Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris by less than 6 percentage points. As Newsweek reported this month, it was the best showing by a GOP presidential nominee in two decades. By comparison, Joe Biden won New Jersey by 16 percentage points in the 2020 election. Ciattarelli, who won Trump's endorsement in May, also got some good news in a recent poll published shortly before Tuesday's primaries. According to SurveyUSA, Ciattarelli and Sherrill are viewed favorably by a near-equal percentage of New Jersey voters. The SurveyUSA poll found that 40 percent of Garden State voters have a favorable view of Ciattarelli, while 41 percent view Sherrill favorably. But there's a larger gap between the two candidates when it comes to their unfavorables, with 29 percent of voters having an unfavorable view of Sherrill, compared to 36 percent who have an unfavorable opinion of Ciattarelli. What People Are Saying The Democratic National Committee, in an emailed statement to Newsweek from Chair Ken Martin: "Congratulations to New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial nominee Rep. Mikie Sherrill and to New Jersey Democrats up and down the ballot who are stepping up to fight for families across the Garden State. "The DNC is all hands on deck to ensure the Governor's office and Assembly remain blue in November. We will do everything in our power to unite the party and defeat Republican extremists like Jack Ciattarelli who want to rubber stamp Donald Trump's cost-hiking agenda and sell out working-class Americans. In 2025, Democrats have overwhelmingly won and overperformed in special and off-year elections. Concluding, Martin said, "We'll continue that trend in New Jersey by organizing in every corner of the state, investing strategically, and working with our allies on the ground to elect more Democrats who will stand up to the Trump disaster and deliver for working families." Sherrill's campaign said in a statement, in part: "Let's be clear about the two visions in this race: I am ready to stand up to an extreme Washington that doesn't have New Jersey's best interests at heart. Jack has already surrendered to them. It's our duty to meet the moment and live up to our state's motto of liberty and prosperity, because a Trump yes man like Jack Ciattarelli in Trenton will threaten it all." She added: "While Jack is for Trump, I am for New Jersey. A New Jersey where housing is affordable so our kids can afford to live here, middle-class families can buy a home, and our seniors can afford to stay. A New Jersey where we finally take control of our energy future, and slash the cost of utilities. A New Jersey where a woman's right to an abortion is non-negotiable, and we respect the rule of law, due process, and the Constitution." Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend: "The Great State of New Jersey has a very important Primary coming up on Tuesday. Get Out and Vote for Jack Ciattarelli, who has my Complete and Total Endorsement! His Opponents are going around saying they have my Endorsement, which is not true, I don't even know who they are! We can't play games when it comes to Elections, and New Jersey is a very important State that we must WIN. The whole World is watching. Vote for Jack Ciattarelli to, MAKE NEW JERSEY GREAT AGAIN!" What Happens Next The general election in New Jersey's governor's race is on November 4. In addition to Sherrill and Ciattarelli, five third-party or independent candidates are also running for the seat.