The Trump Presidency 2.0

I've been mulling this over for a while and I'm not quite sure I'm there yet with the analogy, but here goes.

What's happening right now with the Trump administration reminds me a lot of the approach JSOC took against AQ in Iraq. Ultimately, we hit them so hard in so many different places for so long, that it affected their ability to do... pretty much anything.* Also, we really concentrated on going after the dark money. It's really, really hard to do nefarious things without the dollars to backstop everything. Even true believers want to get paid every once in a while.

That seems to be the approach right now. There is so much happening all over the place, including in a lot of unexpected ways (Gaza? WTF) that it's hard to react. And with DOGE going after the money, and with the corporations like Meta that were basically paying protection money to the Left now free to not do that (or afraid to keep doing it), we're seeing a LOT of change VERY quickly.








*...and then we told the Iraqis "Hey, you've got this! We're out." and then ISIS.
 
The article is paywalled, so I couldn't read it.

Maybe I could get USAID to pay for it?

Democrats are in an uproar over President Donald Trump’s plan to abolish the U.S. Agency for International Development and move its functions into the State Department. At a rally in front of the shuttered agency, Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) declared that “this is what the beginning of dictatorship looks like,” while Rep. Jamie Raskin (Maryland) said Trump “is threatening lives all over the world.”

Please. Shuttering USAID is not some evil MAGA plot. In fact, it was first proposed by a Democrat — Secretary of State Warren Christopher — who tried to close the foreign aid agency during the Clinton administration.
In 1995, Christopher proposed a plan to eliminate three independent foreign policy agencies — USAID, the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) — and merge them into a “super State Department.” In a 15-page single-spaced memo, his State Department declared “the current organizational structures and activities of the department and other foreign affairs agencies … are increasingly redundant, bloated and unresponsive to policy makers.” It even produced an organizational chart showing the three abolished agencies absorbed into a new “Consolidated Department of International Relations.” This would have restored President John F. Kennedy’s original vision for USAID, which he established in 1961 by executive order as “an agency in the Department of State” — but has since grown into an massive, entrenched bureaucratic behemoth.

Then, as now, the consolidation plan encountered fierce opposition from the foreign aid bureaucracy — USAID Director J. Brian Atwood told Christopher he would resign if his proposal went through — which managed to persuade Vice President Al Gore and his “reinventing government” team to torpedo the plan.

But not before my then-boss, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), got involved. In a Feb. 14, 1995, Post op-ed headlined “Christopher Is Right,” Helms declared he would not allow the Clinton administration to shelve “the most thoughtful reorganization of U.S. foreign affairs institutions since World War II.” USAID, Helms wrote, had become “an entrenched bureaucracy” that was “not functioning as part of a coherent, coordinated approach, maximizing the benefit of every dollar spent” and adding, “It is my intent to support Secretary Christopher against the bureaucrats who feel threatened by his long-overdue reorganization of Foggy Bottom.”
Helms put forward a plan of his own to merge the three agencies into the State Department. Atwood went on the attack, declaring Helms an “neo-isolationist” who wanted to gut foreign aid. Big mistake. It turned out that many within USAID supported Helms’s reorganization, and some began leaking internal memos to Helms’s staff detailing waste, fraud and abuse inside the agency — which we released to the press as “Captured Enemy Documents.” Noting how Helms had famously blocked a National Endowment for the Arts grant for a performance artist who smeared her nude body with chocolate syrup, a Post article said the pugnacious senator was now “smearing AID’s nude body with chocolate syrup … pointing out AID’s supposed miscues in a series of press releases.”

Among the captured documents was a cable from the U.S. ambassador to Chad complaining to the State Department about USAID’s attempt to fund a bizarre study on the “Viability of the Chadian State,” asking: “What exactly would we have done if they concluded that it wasn’t?” USAID projects, the ambassador said, deepened “the culture of dependency,” resulted in “little direct contact with poor people” and had “gestation periods longer than that of an African elephant.”
Helms refused to allow a Senate vote on the Chemical Weapons Convention or payment of U.N. arrears until Clinton agreed to his reorganization plan. After a long standoff, they compromised: Congress passed, and Clinton signed, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which eliminated two of the three agencies (USIA and ACDA) and allowed USAID to remain a distinct entity but took away its independence, putting its administrator “under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State.” The bill was supported by none other than … wait for it … Sen. Joe Biden, then the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/06/edith-pritchett-cartoon-jurassic-world/

Thanks to the Helms-Biden law, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has full legal authority over USAID — including the power to serve as acting director, delegate his authority to a subordinate in the State Department, pause foreign aid spending, direct staff not to report to work and move USAID functions into the State Department — all of which he has done. To permanently dismantle USAID requires an act of Congress, but short of that Rubio has broad authority over its operations.

He is right to exercise that authority. The fact is, none of the good things USAID does cannot be done from the State Department. But too many foreign aid bureaucrats don’t like the president’s team ensuring that their work keeps with Trump’s foreign policy objectives. As Rubio correctly put it during his visit to Central America, “In many cases, USAID is involved in programs that run counter to what we’re trying to do in our national strategy with that country or with that region. That cannot continue. USAID is not an independent nongovernmental entity. It is an entity that spends taxpayer dollars, and it needs to spend it, as the statute says, in alignment with the policy directives that they get from the secretary of state, the National Security Council and the president.”
Trump, Elon Musk and Rubio are finally making sure, as Helms insisted three decades ago, that “every dollar spent on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy is spent wisely, efficiently and in support of our national interest.”
Somewhere, Helms — and Christopher — are smiling.
 
Just from an organizational and coherent national policy perspective, how could USAID **not** be under the State Department? If USAID is supposed to “end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies,” as stated in the article, shouldn't that be done under the direct supervision of the Department of State, whose mission is to "advance U.S. interests and values abroad while promoting a peaceful and prosperous world?" What's to stop USAID from going off on its own program and unintentionally (or, perhaps, intentionally) act in ways that are counter to the goals of the State Department and/or the President of the United States?
 
If Kash Patel is committed to transparency like he claims, is he going to release the Epstein logs and tapes? Trump's innocent, so surely he won't object to releasing info that could send the Clinton's to jail, right?
Bondi said as much. As soon as Kash is in, she's asking for the logs. Do you think Trump is complicit the way Bill Clinton is complicit?

It is funny that an immigrant is now actually taking tons of peoples jobs.
Remember when House of Cards made a move to put that PDF Kevin Spacey in the dark money role because it's more powerful than the president? And Claire was able to use that outsize influence from the presidency to get more things done? Same same but different.

Dan Bongino had a great rundown of the USAID/connection to all these other projects (I want to say it's the first half hour of the show). You have to get over listening to Dan Bongino, but the underlying information is interesting- especially given the revelation from Michael Shellenberger that USAID (and OCCRP, the cut out along with Chemonics) funds CIA regime change and owned media arms (like Politico) to push their narrative,.

The Ukraine impeachment came directly from non-sourced reporting of a whistleblower who didn't hear the call himself (theyself? IDK), rather, referenced a "report" from a media outlet we now know is government-funded. The media runs with the story, Trump gets impeached for asking why Ukraine is quite obviously a money-laundering front with USAID as a prime player in that whole scheme.

Now, I know the Democrats would never try a coup of a sitting president using the levers of power and control they possessed... well except when they did it to Biden... you get it.

ETA- forgot the Shellenberger link.
 
Back
Top