Trump and Musk Take a Hammer to America's Reputation
A 'SPECIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE' wealthy beyond the dreams of Croesus, chose as his first target the poorest and most vulnerable people on Earth. On Sunday evening, Elon Musk and his peach-fuzz adjutants locked employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development out of their email accounts, shut down the agency website, announced that nearly everyone would be fired, and crowed that USAID had been fed into a 'wood chipper.' President Onlooker muttered approvingly that the agency had it coming because it was dominated by 'radical left lunatics.' Musk called them criminals.
USAID is a duly constituted government agency created by Congress and the president. By law, it can be shut down only by Congress and the president. The attempt to close it by the whim of a ketamine-popping oligarch is flagrantly illegal, and will eventually, one assumes, be reversed by the courts. But that could take months (and there's a sting in the tail, which I'll come to in a minute).
Meanwhile, Americans who work for the agency, most of them overseas, have been thrown into chaos, and the people who benefit from the assistance have been left in the lurch. That includes people on the verge of starvation in Yemen; AIDS patients in sub-Saharan Africa; people clearing landmines in Cambodia; medical workers treating people with malaria, cholera, and measles in Sudan; and those providing medicine, housing, food, and other assistance to Ukraine, among millions of others worldwide. Until last week, USAID was the largest distributor of humanitarian assistance on Earth. Today, by abruptly pulling the plug, the world's greatest humanitarian country has become one of its least, raising a huge middle finger to those facing hunger, disease, war, and oppression.
The only way we're going to get through this is together. Become a Bulwark+ member today to join our community.
Silicon Valley types like to move fast and break things. I guess that's fine if the only thing you break is your own bank account, but applying that spirit to foreign assistance (again, without a shred of legal authority) means breaking human beings. And it means criminal waste. Wasn't Musk supposed to be seeking to limit waste? According to two sources with knowledge of foreign assistance activities at the Department of State and USAID, more than 475,000 metric tons of American food commodities (purchased from farmers in Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa) have already been ordered and are now at risk of rotting at railroad sidings or ports. Another 29,000 metric tons, valued at $30 million, are reportedly sitting in a Texas warehouse and cannot be shipped to needy people.
Most of the 10,000 people who work for USAID have no idea if they will ever see another paycheck. Those in conflict zones like Ukraine are unsure whether they retain diplomatic status. They've been told to come home but they have no guidance about how or whether the government will pay for their transportation. They've been locked out of their phones and their computers and feel anxious and isolated.
Like any agency or, frankly, any human organization, USAID has faults. Some of its programs could be streamlined, one employee told me, but 'we respond to earthquakes and wars—don't smash everything because 2 percent have problems!'
The people drawn to work in humanitarian assistance are the polar opposite of Musk. Some were refugees or other recipients of aid when they were young and want to pay it forward. These and others from various backgrounds are nature's noblemen, drawn from across the country and including doctors, public health specialists, nurses, teachers, truck drivers, and many, many former military members. Most could make much better salaries in the private sector but feel called to help the most vulnerable people in the world. Many accept long separations from their families and endure uncomfortable and often dangerous postings in places that Silicon Valley types don't frequent. They stand ready, with bags packed, to receive a midnight call. 'When there was an Ebola outbreak in 2013,' one USAID employee told me, 'doctors with USAID rushed to Uganda to stop the spread. They put their own lives at risk. No one knows about it because they succeeded and Ebola never spread to the [United States]. So much of what we do is unseen, but that doesn't make it unimportant.'
Now, they are afraid to speak freely. They sound more like dissidents in places like China or Russia than like Americans. They fear they are being monitored and targeted for God-only-knows what kind of accusation or retribution.
FOREIGN AID NEVER POLLS WELL. Many Americans imagine that we spend 25 percent of our budget supporting humanitarian needs in far-flung places. When asked how much would be about right, they suggest about 10 percent. The true figure is less than 1 percent, though our presence—and our bags of grain labeled prominently with the words 'From the American People'—is felt in scores of nations around the globe.
Even if they were preaching gender ideology with every shot of penicillin (and they're not) it would still be worth doing. We should give to the poor both for its own sake—it is basic morality after all—and for the reputation and standing of the United States.
Now for the sting in the tail. The courts will take up Musk's attack on American benevolence in due course, and while one cannot predict with certainty how they will rule, it's a reasonably safe bet that they will find that the Trump/Musk demolition project was illegal. Then comes the moment of truth. It remains an open question whether Trump will obey the court. If he does, we will still have a republic. If not, we've turned the page.
Share
Hashtags

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


San Francisco Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Alert: Republicans are less enthusiastic about Musk after his feud with Trump, a new AP-NORC poll finds
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are less enthusiastic about Musk after his feud with Trump, a new AP-NORC poll finds.


USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
See photos: The last large-scale military parade in Washington DC in 1991
See photos: The last large-scale military parade in Washington DC in 1991 Show Caption Hide Caption Armored tanks arrive in DC for Trump's military birthday parade As Washington, D.C. prepares for the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, armored tanks have begun to arrive ahead of Saturday's celebration. Thousands of soldiers, military equipment, musical performances and more are set for this weekend in Washington D.C. for the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary celebration. Happening along the National Mall on Saturday, June 14, the event is also falling on the same day as President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, but the administration has insisted that the Army's anniversary and Trump's birthday are a coincidence and that the parade is justified to honor soldiers' sacrifice. Army parachutists jumping from aircraft are set to land and give Trump an American flag for his birthday, Pentagon officials said, according to Axios. A rare sight in Washington D.C., the last major military parade was held in 1991 to celebrate the end of the first Gulf War. Before 1991, large-scale military parades were held following the American victory in World War I and World War II. According to the National Park Service, "debates over military policy" that occurred during the Korean and Vietnam wars forced parades to be more "subdued." Photos: The last large military parade in Washington DC Contributing: Kathryn Palmer and staff, USA TODAY Fernando Cervantes Jr. is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. Reach him at and follow him on X @fern_cerv_.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration Needs Better Opposition
Donald Trump needs better enemies. More accurately, the American people need the president and his allies to have a higher quality opposition. In office, President Trump has embraced some truly terrible—and occasionally dangerous—policies, including federalizing National Guard troops and mobilizing U.S. Marines to deal with riots that really should be left to California officials to handle or fumble as their abilities allow. But his opponents insist on embracing lunacy and ineffectiveness and making the president look reasonable by comparison, effectively giving his actions a pass. "Donald Trump, without consulting with California's law enforcement leaders, commandeered 2,000 of our state's National Guard members to deploy on our streets. Illegally, and for no reason," complained Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the president turned local rioting into a federal issue. Newsom expanded on his objections in a glitch-filled speech that focused more on Trump than the riots. It played into the reputation for incompetence he's gained over years of ignoring his state's problems, including all of the missteps that led to the recent wildfires in and around Los Angeles. Those fires didn't exactly cover Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in glory either, and neither has her response to the chaos. She's alternated between supporting demonstrators protesting the federal immigration raids that sparked the riots and vowing crackdowns on violence. One minute she touts her work with "community organizations, legal advocates, and local leaders to ensure that every resident knows their rights" and the next she reminds Angelenos that downtown is under curfew. That's unfortunate, because the feckless California officials raise legitimate concerns about the president's actions. There are good reasons to object to a president responding to local events with federal troops. "Preemptive nationwide deployment of the military is the very opposite of using the military as a 'last resort,'" warns Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program. "It is so wildly out of keeping with how the Insurrection Act and 10 U.S.C. § 12406 have been interpreted and applied that it should be entitled to no deference by the courts." The law that President Trump relied on—10 U.S.C. § 12406—allows the president to "call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State" to repel invasions, suppress rebellions, or enforce the law when regular forces are insufficient. Invoking that law over local disorder before state and local officials have had much of a chance to do anything is a stretch of the law's intent as well as a slap at federalism. The law says nothing authorizing the use of regular military forces, leaving the impression that the Marines Trump dispatched are just hitching a ride on his presidential memorandum to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act's restrictions on the domestic use of the military. Which means that Newsom and Bass had a great opportunity to show their chops and object to federal interference—if they were up to the demands of that role. They're not. Worse, though, are the rioters themselves. As Matthew Ormseth and James Queally described the scene for Los Angeles Times readers, "some in the crowd lobbed bottles and fireworks at the LAPD," "vandals set fire to a row of Waymos," and "people wearing masks flung chunks of concrete—and even a few electric scooters—at" California Highway Patrol officers. That speaks for itself—but not as loudly as the idiots throwing Molotov cocktails at police. Rioting understandably became the dominant news story, overshadowing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that originally set off protests before they turned violent. Smarter protesters would have kept demonstrations peaceful and attention focused on arrests that we were told would target violent criminals but too often ensnare harmless people. "Federal immigration officials appeared to target day laborers in raids Monday at a Home Deport in Santa Ana," the Los Angeles NBC affiliate reported this week. Traditional gathering places for immigrants seeking work—and not so many vicious gangbangers—have been targeted across the country. "Stephen Miller, a top White House aide and architect of the president's immigration agenda, asked ICE officials to step up the pace of immigrant deportations, including in Home Depot parking lots and at 7-Eleven Stores," according to The Wall Street Journal. ICE has also gone after immigrants navigating the bureaucratic path to legal immigration and even citizens who were wrongly detained. Those outrages were pushed into the background when rioting inevitably grabbed the headlines. Not that Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson gives a damn about keeping the message straight. As violent protests spread across the country, he urged his constituents to "rise up" and "resist." Apparently, he doesn't want to miss out on the excitement of watching parts of his city burn. Not everybody is impressed by this version of opposition to the Trump administration. "I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that," Sen. John Fetterman (D–Penn.) warned this week. "This is anarchy and true chaos. My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement." Fetterman has, somewhat surprisingly, emerged as a voice of sanity for his party. He's called Democrats to account over the antisemitism of the party's progressive wing and now for confusing tantrums in the street with effective opposition. A few more Democrats like him would go a long way towards rescuing the party from its self-inflicted wounds and giving the U.S. a functioning political opposition. The country could really use a functioning opposition. The Trump administration's turn towards economic nationalism, unilateral power, authoritarianism, and xenophobia cry out for criticism and alternative solutions. That criticism should be peaceful and those alternatives should be sensibly presented. Ideally, they should also advance liberty and limit government. For the moment, though, that may be too much to ask of Democrats. Many of them are still wrestling with the temptations of appearing to be either inept or dangerous lunatics. The post The Trump Administration Needs Better Opposition appeared first on