Nick Allardice
GiveDirectly was already one of the world's largest providers of unconditional cash transfers to people living in extreme poverty when Nick Allardice, former head of the grassroots organizing platform Change.org, came on as president and CEO last year. Now, under Allardice's leadership, the nonprofit is undertaking its most ambitious projects yet—despite a $20 million hit to funding because of USAID cuts.
'We're leaning more into humanitarian work now because cash can be uniquely powerful when all the other supply chains are super disrupted,' Allardice says.
In the U.S., GiveDirectly's Rx Kids initiative is expanding to more than a dozen communities, after an initial program in Flint, Mich. showed promising improvements to participants' health and financial security. The program provides poor expectant mothers with $1,500 during pregnancy and $500 a month for up to a year after the child's birth. Other new initiatives include a pilot program in Nigeria testing anticipatory aid, sending money to people before a flood hits; another uses phone location data in the Democratic Republic of Congo to spot and send cash payments to people fleeing violence—cutting a typical 130-day wait for relief to five days.
Allardice's biggest bet: a program in Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries, to test 'whether it's possible to catalyze an entire country out of poverty simultaneously.' To find out, GiveDirectly will send 200,000 adults in one region $550 each over the next 18 months in its largest-ever cash program. 'The world needs more moonshots,' Allardice says.
Write to Kerri Anne Renzulli at kerri.renzulli@moneymail.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
9 hours ago
- Newsweek
Judges Hand Elon Musk Double Legal Blow
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. Elon Musk and Tesla suffered a pair of legal setbacks on Monday after federal judges in California and Maryland certified separate class action lawsuits against the carmaker and its CEO personally. The rulings open the door for broader litigation over Tesla's marketing of its self-driving technology, and Musk's alleged role in efforts to defund the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Musk has not publicly responded to either ruling. Newsweek contacted Tesla and USAID for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Tuesday. Why It Matters A class-action lawsuit allows one or more people sue on behalf of a larger group with similar claims. Instead of each person filing separately, the court treats them as a single "class," making litigation more efficient and giving individuals—who might not sue on their own—the ability to pursue claims collectively. If plaintiffs win or reach a settlement, the outcome typically applies to everyone in the class unless they opt out. Certification of the Tesla class action magnifies the company's legal and financial risk by grouping customers into a single lawsuit. Certification of the USAID class action raises Musk's potential liability and exposes him to wider discovery into his personal actions. Together, the new rulings highlight Musk's growing exposure in the courtroom. The rulings do not decide liability but mark a pivotal stage, significantly raising the stakes. Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025. Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025. Allison ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images What to Know Tesla Ruling In California, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin certified two classes in litigation over Tesla's claims that its vehicles were equipped for full self-driving capability. The case centers on statements by Tesla and Musk that all vehicles produced since late 2016 had the hardware necessary for "Level 5 Autonomy." At an October 2016 press conference, Musk said: "Basic news is that all cars exiting the factory have hardware necessary for Level 5 Autonomy so that's in terms of Cameras, Compute Power, it's in every car we make ... literally meaning hardware capable of full self-driving for driver less capability," court papers said. Plaintiffs argue those claims misled consumers into purchasing costly packages such as Enhanced Autopilot (EAP) and Full Self-Driving (FSD). One named plaintiff, Thomas LoSavio, said he spent $8,000 on the packages because he believed full autonomy would soon be available. Tesla has disputed allegations it missold features, pointing to disclosures that FSD was subject to "validation and regulatory approval." But the court ruled those statements did not negate the broader message that vehicles already had the hardware for autonomy. Tesla's lawyers opposed class certification, arguing plaintiffs cannot represent all buyers exposed to self-driving claims since October 2016, noting some owners value the features and may not want them deactivated. Judge Lin concluded that Tesla's representations were widespread enough to affect California purchasers and could form the basis for class-wide claims under consumer protection and fraud statutes. "Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that class members were exposed to the Hardware Statement from October 2016 to August 2024," she wrote. Two subclasses were certified: one covering California residents who purchased FSD packages between October 2016 and May 2017, and another for those who opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement between 2017 and mid-2024. An injunctive relief class was also certified, which could bar Tesla from making similar statements unless vehicles can actually drive themselves. USAID Ruling Meanwhile, in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang certified a class action against Musk personally. In J. Doe 4 v. Musk, plaintiffs allege that Musk was involved in efforts to dismantle or defund USAID programs, undermining the agency's operations. The lawsuit, filed by USAID employees and the State Democracy Defenders Fund, represented by Norm Eisen and other attorneys, alleges that only someone nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate as an "Officer of the United States" could dismantle the agency. Plaintiffs allege Musk, an informal adviser to President Donald Trump, was involved in efforts aligned with the second Trump administration's attempt to dismantle USAID. The judge's 2-page certification order allows plaintiffs to press collective claims rather than pursue them individually. While the court did not detail the alleged conduct in Monday's filing, the decision means Musk could face broader liability if the claims are proven. Musk's lawyers argued class certification was unnecessary, saying overlapping lawsuits already cover the claims and would add "significant additional complexity and burdens" on the court. What People Are Saying Plaintiff Thomas LoSavio, who paid about $8,000 for the Full Self‑Driving feature in 2017, said in his testimony he was, "still waiting for the technology six years later, with Tesla remaining unable 'even remotely' to produce a fully self‑driving car." Judge Theodore D. Chuang's March 18, 2025 decision on USAID read: "Where Congress has prescribed the existence of USAID in statute pursuant to its legislative powers under Article I, the President's Article II power ... does not provide authority for the unilateral, drastic actions taken to dismantle the agency." Plaintiffs' counsel in the USAID case Norm Eisen, executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund, told the Washington Post on March 18: "They are performing surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, harming not just the people USAID serves but the majority of Americans who count on the stability of our government. This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE's illegality." Deputy press secretary for the White House Anna Kelly responded in a March 19 statement: "If these Judges want to force their partisan ideologies across the government, they should run for office themselves. The Trump Administration will appeal this miscarriage of justice and fight back against all activist judges intruding on the separation of powers." What Happens Next The Tesla case will now move toward trial, with plaintiffs seeking damages in the form of refunds for FSD purchases and subscriptions. A September 24 conference will set the schedule as discovery begins, with Tesla expected to seek dismissal. In the USAID case, class members will be notified as discovery and motions proceed, potentially expanding Musk's liability.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
US aid cuts to Ukraine raise risk of waste and fraud, say watchdogs
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -USAID is concerned that the Trump administration's cancellation of independent aid monitoring contracts for Ukraine has increased the risk of waste, fraud and abuse, according to three U.S. watchdog agencies. "The termination of third-party monitoring contracts has further limited USAID's ability to oversee programs," the State Department, Pentagon and USAID inspectors general said in a report issued on Thursday. The U.S. Agency for International Development was the main U.S. agency that administered civilian foreign aid for more than 60 years. It is being dismantled by the Trump administration and is scheduled to be closed on September 2. The three inspectors general submit quarterly reports to Congress on their oversight of U.S. civilian support for Ukraine in its fight against Russia's full-scale invasion launched in February 2022. In January, President Donald Trump froze all U.S. foreign assistance programs pending a review of their alignment with his "America First" policies, and ordered the dismantling of USAID, which stopped disbursing funds in July. As part of this decision, billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency oversaw the termination of 83 percent of USAID programs, including some that supported Ukraine. The watchdogs' report said that USAID managed $30.2 billion in direct support for the Ukrainian government's budget, and provided a guarantee that secured a $20 billion loan for Kyiv. It said that in the three months ending June 31, 25 civilian aid programs for Ukraine were terminated, while 29 active programs, five under stop-work orders and four of unknown status were transferred to the State Department. The terminated programs included contracts with third parties that provided independent tracking of USAID funds to ensure that they were spent as intended and that helped "inform both current and future decision-making," it said. "USAID said that without independent monitoring, it cannot verify that programs are being implemented in line with award terms, increasing the risk of waste, fraud and abuse," the report said. This is especially true in conflict-affected areas "where there is a heightened potential for diversion of funds," it warned.
Fox News
6 days ago
- Fox News
US appeals court says Trump can slash billions in owed USAID funds
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can slash up to roughly $2 billion in foreign aid payments that it halted earlier this year, delivering a victory to the Trump administration months after President Donald Trump sought to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 to reverse a lower court's decision that ordered the Trump administration to resume paying out the nearly $2 billion in USAID funding that had previously been approved by Congress. Writing for the majority, Judge Karen L. Henderson, a Bush appointee, said that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue the Trump administration over its decision to withhold the funds. TRUMP TEMPORARILY THWARTED IN DOGE MISSION TO END USAID The plaintiffs, she said, "may not bring a freestanding constitutional claim if the underlying alleged violation and claimed authority are statutory." She was joined in the majority opinion by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. "Nor do the grantees have a cause of action under the APA because APA review is precluded by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)," she added. "And the grantees may not reframe this fundamentally statutory dispute as an ultra vires claim either. Instead, the Comptroller General may bring suit as authorized by the ICA." The decision is a victory for Trump, who moved to dismantle USAID and other foreign spending almost immediately after he was sworn in to his second White House term. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP That decision sparked the ire of foreign aid groups and other recipients of the assistance, who quickly sued over the frozen payments, and argued that the quick dismantling of them risked "immediate and irreparable harm." This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
