Not to mention that the radicalisation and terrorism USAID helped prevent from fomenting has likely saved the US many trillions in rebuilding efforts and healthcare.
USAID, as far as I can tell, is stoking anti-US sentiment in many places by importing their own cultural values, and that's a known thing State Department officials have commented on.
Additionally, to be specific on even worse activity:
A few months ago, $9M of USAID went to an organization affiliated with Al Qaeda.
The Middle East Forum recently found $164M in USAID grants to radical organizations.
Apart from that, we've since found lots of evidence of USAID funding Hamas specifically. $900K was given days before the October 7th attack.
There's even pictures of Al Shabaab terrorists inside a USAID tent.
It looks like in a week, they uncovered over $100M, maybe $200M in fraud (I'm not keeping close track), if you count million-dollar "executive coaching" contracts as fraud (I do). It's most likely telling their friend outside the government "hey, I got some extra budget — you be my 'executive coach,' and we'll split the proceeds."
They've found billions in things that we should not be spending our money on while our own people die of drug overdoses, homeless in the street. Things "we don't like" as you say.
I keep hearing them talking about "fraud", but I've yet to see it substantiated. Where are the reports? Where is the evidence? If we consider Musk to be an unreliable actor (I do), then I need more than his word.
Does the tens of millions in "executive coaching" and "strategic communication" contracts really not look like fraud to you, or do you not believe that they're there because it's DOGE reporting it?
I think they're moving as fast as possible right now, and it takes a while to investigate & report.
> If we consider Musk to be an unreliable actor (I do),
Musk said himself yesterday that he expects to be wrong, he has been wrong, and we should all scrutinize him thoroughly. So even he admits he's an unreliable actor.
We like to use the principle of charitable interpretation on here, and to be charitable, I think it's really clear he was saying that everybody should expect to be wrong sometimes, has been wrong, and should be scrutinized thoroughly.
To label someone as an unreliable actor is different than using our own free will and minds to analyze actions and determine truth.
Competent people use processes, procedures, and safeguards to minimize human error. It's easy to say "everyone makes mistakes" when you're just a guy, but when you're wielding the powers of the presidency in such an unbalanced and unchecked way, he should be reassuring us how he will assure the trustworthiness of his proclamations going forward. Instead, he gestures vaguely to the human condition.
How can you say he's not an unreliable actor? The man has unlimited resources, power, and the best information available to him. He also is in a position of dizzying public trust right now, so really he should be making the utmost effort to be above reproach. "Aw shucks man, what do you expect, I'm just human after all" is not reassuring. And I'm sorry that's not a charitable enough take, but we are far past the time for benefit of the doubt.
But those are insignificant portions of the federal budget and nothing indicates that the repercussions of the wanton tear-thru of federal agencies is going to be a net-gain for the US.
It will take years to understand the amount of corruption & waste in the federal government. We can agree that these numbers found each day are 'insignificant', but it adds up, and I think we need a hard reset on the size & scope of government. That's what was voted in by the people.
Sorry, but I'm highly skeptical that the political figures who are doing things like unconstitutionally firing inspectors general have any good interest at heart. It's completely contrary to what you are suggesting is going on. There is no good faith effort here to root out corruption. It is an effort to dismantle things that stand in the way of further graft.