
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

35 minutes ago
Trump signs measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that blocks California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The state quickly announced it was challenging the move in court, with California's attorney general holding a news conference to discuss the lawsuit before Trump's signing ceremony ended at the White House. The resolution was approved by Congress last month and aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. Trump also signed measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. Trump called California's regulations 'crazy' at a White House ceremony where he signed the resolutions. 'It's been a disaster for this country,' he said. It comes as the Republican president is mired in a clash with California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, over Trump's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests. It's the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and heavily Democratic California over issues including tariffs, the rights of LGBTQ+ youth and funding for electric vehicle chargers. The state is already involved in more than two-dozen lawsuits challenging Trump administration actions, and the state's Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the latest one at a news conference in California. Ten other states, all with Democratic attorneys general, joined the lawsuit filed Thursday. 'The federal government's actions are not only unlawful; they're irrational and wildly partisan,' Bonta said. 'They come at the direct expense of the health and the well-being of our people.' The three resolutions Trump signed will block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and end the sale of new ones by 2035. They will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. In his remarks at the White House, Trump expressed doubts about the performance and reliability of electric vehicles, though he had some notably positive comments about the company owned by Elon Musk, despite their fractured relationship. 'I like Tesla,' Trump said. In remarks that often meandered away from the subject at hand, Trump used the East Room ceremony to also muse on windmills, which he claimed 'are killing our country,' the prospect of getting electrocuted by an electric-powered boat if it sank and whether he'd risk a shark attack by jumping as the boat went down. 'I'll take electrocution every single day," the president said. When it comes to cars, Trump said he likes combustion engines but for those that prefer otherwise, 'If you want to buy electric, you can buy electric.' 'What this does is it gives us freedom,' said Bill Kent, the owner of Kent Kwik convenience stores. Kent, speaking at the White House, said that the California rules would have forced him to install 'infrastructure that frankly, is extremely expensive and doesn't give you any return.' The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major car makers, applauded Trump's action. 'Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic,' John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO, said in a statement. Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, and California officials contend that what the federal government is doing is illegal and said the state plans to sue. Newsom said Trump's action was a continuation of his 'all-out assault' on California. 'And this time he's destroying our clean air and America's global competitiveness in the process,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.' The signings come as Trump has pledged to revive American auto manufacturing and boost oil and gas drilling. The move follows other steps the Trump administration has taken to roll back rules that aim to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Dan Becker with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the signing of the resolutions was 'Trump's latest betrayal of democracy.' 'Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward Big Oil and Big Auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets,' Becker said in a statement. California, which has some of the nation's worst air pollution, has been able to seek waivers for decades from the EPA, allowing it to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its standards, but Democratic President Joe Biden reinstated it in 2022. Trump has not yet sought to revoke it again. Republicans have long criticized those waivers and earlier this year opted to use the Congressional Review Act, a law aimed at improving congressional oversight of actions by federal agencies, to try to block the rules. That's despite a finding from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, that California's standards cannot legally be blocked using the Congressional Review Act. The Senate parliamentarian agreed with that finding. California, which makes up roughly 11% of the U.S. car market, has significant power to sway trends in the auto industry. About a dozen states signed on to adopt California's rule phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars.


Bloomberg
39 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Why Is Huawei Downplaying Its Chips?
It may seem like odd messaging from a tech chief. But Huawei Technologies Co. founder Ren Zhengfei said that Americans have 'exaggerated' his company's chip achievements, which 'still lag behind the US by a generation.' When it comes to the race for the hardware needed to support artificial intelligence, his company 'isn't that powerful yet,' Ren added in a lengthy front-page interview with the People's Daily this week. Still, there is 'no need to worry' about the US restrictions, he insisted. By bundling Huawei's chips together, or so-called clustering, they can still match rival offerings from top global players.


Bloomberg
40 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bessent, Senator Warren in Heated Exchange Over Deficit
CC-Transcript 00:00Will this bill increase or decrease the deficit? Are varying scoring on that. So will the secretary of the Treasury. So I'm asking you, what is your view? Will this bill increase or decrease the deficit? It is my view that over the ten year window, it will decrease. You know, do you have anybody who agrees with you on this? Yes. Yes. Let me let me ask my question. Okay. Every credible independent expert agrees that Trump and the Republicans big, beautiful bill would add trillions of dollars to the national debt and would not even come close to paying for itself. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Penn Wharton budget model, and the Yale Budget Lab all agree on this, and they're looking at ten year windows. Thank you. So do the Conservative Tax Foundation and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Conservative groups, even Elon Musk and The Wall Street Journal are criticizing the bill for ballooning the national debt. The only people who are saying publicly that it's not going to add to the national debt, are you Donald Trump? The Republicans in Congress. Do you have an independent group that has put forward numbers that disagrees with all of these conservative groups and disagrees with The Wall Street Journal on this? Well, Senator, interesting to see you aligned with Elon Musk. But if I you're no more shocked than I am the. If we want to take the full congressional congressional budget scoring, they predict and I don't agree with their methodology, they predict a 2.4 trillion deficit, but they show the gap. No, no, no. But may I finish? They include that. But they've also scored 2.8 trillion in tariff income. So even even in Washington, D.C., math in Washington, D.C., math, that is a 400 billion surplus. Okay. So let me make sure I understand. This bill, you admit, will increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion, but you think there will be another bill and another set of agreements that somehow materialize haven't materialized so far, don't have any statutory authority, but that will make up the difference. So the answer to the original question will this bill increase or decrease the deficit? I think you just said it will increase this bill, increases the. I want to use all the all the CBO scoring and you can't take one without the other. I don't agree with the CBO. The law that we are scoring the bill that is in front of us. We don't have a tariff bill in front of us to score. Mr. Secretary, let me go on to the second question. You've said that government spending is, quote, out of control. You have also called government spending, quote, unsustainable. In fact, in the name of fiscal responsibility, you're working with the Republicans on this big, beautiful bill to pass the biggest cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in American history. So, Mr. Secretary, help me understand here. Why is the national debt so very important that you're trying to kick 16 million people off their health insurance? But increasing the national debt doesn't seem to matter if you're cutting taxes for billionaires and billionaire corporations. Well, first of all, a huge portion of this goes to family owned businesses that are passed through entities that are below that level. Senator. And I am sure you share my goals of Main Street prosperity. You know, I'm glad to do tax cuts for people of modest means. The question I'm asking is why does the deficit not matter to you? We're talking about knocking 16 million people off their health care. But it matters not. It does matter to you if we're knocking people off their health care, but not. Well, first of all, that figure is overstated by 5.1 million. That is amount not attributable to provisions. And do you think it's okay? It is. It is simply health care. First of all, let's set that straight. Work requirements account for 8 million of CBO's claim number. Again, we're creating the economy. So for most Americans, Terry. So you don't want to answer that? No, No, Senator, I am answering. No, you're not. And what I want is for Medicaid to be used there for mothers and children as it was meant not for 1.4 million illegal aliens, not for able bodied people, and not it's not used for people who are not documented. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say here, the part that troubles me the most is that the secretary is deeply worried about the about the deficit and is willing to knock 60 million or, as he says, nearly 11 million people off their health care matter so much. But it doesn't matter so much if you're cutting taxes for billionaires, then it's okay to run up a big deficit. I think that's wrong. For YouLive TV