Podcasts about ngos

On this episode of Fox Across America, Jimmy Failla gives his take on Cracker Barrel's new logo design and explains how this woke rebrand is the latest example of this iconic restaurant chain going against the core values of its regular customers. Founder and Executive Director of Power The Future Daniel Turner shares his thoughts on EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's recent revelation about how the Biden administration allegedly tried to stick the EPA with billions of dollars that was later funneled to lefty nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Actor Mark Holton checks in to discuss his upcoming event in Pennsylvania. PLUS, Fox News Real Estate contributor Katrina Campins talks about why more companies should follow American Eagle's example and use attractive women like Sydney Sweeney to market to their customers. [00:00:00] Cracker Barrel gets a woke rebrand [00:39:03] Zeldin unearths climate slush fund scam [00:58:13] Daniel Turner [01:17:10] Beto is desperate for attention [01:30:20] Mark Holton [01:35:50] Katrina Campins Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Top headlines for Monday, August 18, 2025In this episode, we explore the call from over 200 faith-based organizations and NGOs urging the UN to collaborate with the Global Humanitarian Forum against relief efforts that may empower Hamas. We'll also discuss Evangelist Franklin Graham's call for worldwide prayer ahead of a crucial summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Lastly, we'll examine the impact of new age verification laws in the United Kingdom, which have led to a dramatic drop in internet users accessing pornographic websites.00:11 Over 200 faith groups, NGOs call on UN to support GHF01:05 Church bookkeeper stole 1.5M from operating account: lawsuit01:58 Christian group helps roll out Ten Commandments displays02:50 Judge dismisses Oklahoma's lawsuit against atheist group03:36 Franklin Graham calls for prayer ahead of Trump-Putin summit04:32 Pornhub traffic in UK craters by half thanks to age verification05:33 Texas redistricting circus heats upas blue states, GOP square offSubscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsOver 200 faith groups, NGOs call on UN to support GHF | WorldChurch bookkeeper stole 1.5M from operating account: lawsuit | U.S.Christian group helps roll out Ten Commandments displays | EducationJudge dismisses Oklahoma's lawsuit against atheist group | EducationFranklin Graham calls for prayer ahead of Trump-Putin summit | WorldPornhub traffic in UK craters by half thanks to age verification | WorldTexas redistricting circus heats upas blue states, GOP square off

This week on Hafta, Newslaundry's Abhinandan Sekhri, Manisha Pande, and Jayashree Arunachalam are joined by Priya Sahgal, editorial director at NewsX, Jasmine Damkewala, advocate on record in the Supreme Court, and senior journalist Hridayesh Joshi.The episode opens with a discussion on the opposition's protest against the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar. Priya states that when the opposition sets aside its differences, it can make an impact. “The fact that everybody came together, even the AAP, even though they're not part of the India Block itself, also showed there is unity. When the opposition comes in full strength, they can make an impact and a difference,” she says. Referring to Rahul Gandhi's press conference on alleged voter fraud, Manisha notes how it is unusual for a political party to assume the role traditionally played by the media. “However journalistically sound it may be or not be, it's still striking that political parties today also have to do the media's job of starting a narrative through such investigations, because very few organisations have actually invested time in looking into this issue and the related complaints.”The conversation then shifts to the Supreme Court's order to remove stray dogs from Delhi's streets. Jasmine Damkewala notes that the dog population surged during the pandemic, when government-led sterilisation drives came to a halt. “Especially during COVID, no sterilisations were happening, or very little… The thing is, the state government is not really doing sterilisations. They do very little, and for that, too, they send the dogs to NGOs and pay them for it.” Manisha adds that the court's solution seems unworkable as there aren't enough shelters to house the dogs. “This is Delhi – we haven't even figured out shelters for humans during extreme heat waves or extreme cold waves,” she says.Abhinandan agrees and says, “For the Supreme Court to pass an order that is unimplementable is ridiculous. We have to acknowledge there's a problem, but this is certainly not the solution.”For the discussion on the Uttarakhand disaster, Hridayesh joins from ground zero. He recounts his journey to the site of the tragedy, despite being denied permission by the local authorities. He also discussed the current situation at Dharali, the village most affected by the flood. Check out the Newslaundry store and flaunt your love for independent media. Download the Newslaundry app. Timecodes00:00:00 – Introductions and announcements00:05:46 – Headlines 00:16:47 - Opposition's protest & INDIA bloc unity00:44:31- Priya's recommendations00:47:53 - SC's decision on stray dogs 01:11:04 - Updates on Uttarkashi disaster01:24:27- Letters01:33:40- RecommendationsCheck out previous Hafta recommendations, references, songs and letters.Produced and recorded by Amit Pandey and Naresh. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Love to hear from you; “Send us a Text Message”Former Border Patrol Deputy Agent JJ Carroll pulls back the curtain on America's darkest secret: government-facilitated child trafficking at our border. With 24 years of frontline experience, Carroll delivers a harrowing account of how our federal agencies became active participants in the largest child sex trafficking operation in modern history.The numbers are staggering and the implications horrifying. Upwards of 550,000 unaccompanied children crossed our border under the Biden administration—and all were subsequently lost in the system. Carroll explains how critical safeguards like DNA testing and background checks for sponsors were deliberately removed, creating a pipeline that delivered vulnerable children directly into the hands of traffickers and predators.What makes this crisis particularly disturbing is the complicity of trusted institutions. Religious organizations including Catholic Charities received billions in federal funding to transport migrants from the border into America's interior with minimal oversight. Meanwhile, Congressional leaders show shocking indifference when presented with evidence of trafficking, suggesting deeper corruption than most Americans are willing to acknowledge.Visit JJCarrell.com to learn more and watch his testimony to congress! Read Jacks latest Blog on Substack: "Awakened by Beauty, Commissioned for Battle, Seeking Adventure"For Discussion:Reflect on Personal Integrity and Moral Courage: America's status as the world's leading consumer of child pornography contributes to the broader crisis of child sex trafficking, warning that young men addicted to porn risk losing their hearts and the country itself. Drawing from John Paul II's Theology of the Body, which emphasizes the sacred dignity of the human person and warns against reducing others to objects of use, how can young men examine their own habits—such as exposure to pornography—and cultivate the courage to reject it, thereby standing against the exploitation of children? (Reference: John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, Audience 24-29 on lust and objectification.)Protecting the Innocent as a Faith Imperative: JJ describes horrific abuses in trafficking, including children being "raped to death" for profit. Connect this to a profound spiritual decay in society. In Matthew 18:6, Jesus warns that it would be better to have a millstone tied around one's neck than to cause a little one to stumble. How might men discern their role in confronting institutional complicity—such as in religious organizations or government policies—and take concrete steps to protect children's innocence in their communities?From Awareness to Action in a Window of Opportunity: With the election of Donald Trump we have a "narrow window" to address the crisis. Christian men, there is an urgency to rebuild a society that values innocence. Consider Proverbs 31:8-9: "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute." As young men sensing "something's wrong" in culture, how can you move beyond voting or passive awareness to bold, faith-driven actions against child sex trafficking and pornography, such as volunteering with anti-trafficking groups or educating peers?Support the show

With the U.S. Agency for International Development officially ceasing operations as the main U.S. foreign aid agency on July 1, the State Department now faces the daunting task of spending an estimated $20 billion before the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30 — without the 10,000 staff members who previously managed such distributions. The administration is legally required to spend money appropriated by Congress, or find legal justification for not spending it, as seen in earlier rescission efforts that returned $9 billion to the U.S. Treasury. Meanwhile, USAID Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources Ken Jackson's recent tour of nine countries — including Belgium, Kenya, and the Philippines — to oversee mission closures, has drawn criticism from displaced staff who view the visits as poorly timed during their difficult transitions. With many NGOs forced to restructure or face closure, some organizations are exploring mergers and partnerships to survive, with a new initiative led by Accountability Lab helping them pivot. Devex Business Editor David Ainsworth discusses the latest developments in these stories with reporters Michael Igoe and Elissa Miolene. Sign up to the Devex Newswire and our other newsletters.

2025 has been a challenging year for international development. The abrupt dismantling of USAID by the United States' Trump Administration, sucking $40 billion out of the aid system, as well as significant cuts in development budgets by the United Kingdom and European donors has massively reduced aid funding available. This is having implications for multilateral organisations like the United Nations and World Health Organisation, as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and – of course – the people and communities that they support. How can multilateral organisations and NGOs reflect on the challenge and future directions? How can international development adapt and remain relevant in Asia and the Pacific? How can the process be decolonised to transform ways of working to support locally driven change? Panel: Munkhtuya (Tuya) Altangerel (Resident Representative, UNDP Pacific) Matthew Maury (CEO, Australian Council for International Development) (ACFID) Jope Tarai (PhD Scholar, ANU) Dr Lisa Denney (Director, Centre for Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University) Ambika Vishwanath (Principal Research Fellow, La Trobe Asia) (Chair) This event was a collaboration between the Centre for Human Security and Social Change and La Trobe Asia. Recorded on 14th August, 2025.

If you boil it down to its essence, it's simply about what's true and right about the country versus the dystopian vision ushered in under the Obama era. As President Trump tries to break up corrupt money in NGOs, seal the border, secure elections, and make city streets safer for all Americans while attempting to reverse course on the economy - it's a big job. But what he's trying to fix was broken. Intentionally. And it's a tough fact we must face. Guy Ciarocci has written a smart column called "The 7 Deadly Sins of the Left" and it's a helpful breakdown of how the country got into such a mess. More shocking proof has dropped from DNI Tulsi Gabbard that Obama and his executive branch agencies were proof-positive clouding to push a false story to topple Trump. What will come of the Trump/Putin summit tomorrow and what is fostering the anti-Israel chorus amongst some conservatives? Stigall asked former Trump National Security team member Victoria Coates. Plus, you'll meet the coolest new guest we've welcomed in a while. Kay Smythe-Hill is a Brit now living in North Carolina and she is as smart as she is funny! -For more info visit the official website: https://chrisstigall.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrisstigallshow/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisStigallFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/chris.stigall/Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/StigallPodListen on Apple Podcasts: https://bit.ly/StigallShow-Help protect your wealth with real, physical gold and silver. Texas Bullion Exchange helps everyday Americans diversify with tailored portfolios, IRA rollovers, and expert support every step of the way.

The DC Court of Appeals has handed President Trump yet ANOTHER YUGE court legal victory in affirming the authority of the President to cut off funding from Progressive money laundering operations like USAID and various corrupt NGOs, which had been stealing US taxpayer dollars by the trillions—all to line the pockets of Progressive politicians, court followers, and their privileged families. The unelected, black-robed, tyrannical federal district court Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, the first Muslim and Arab DC district court judge, raised to the bench on November 20 2024 by the Democrats AFTER Trump's re-election, by a mere 50-49 vote, who was also a past leader of a radical left-wing group that called for defunding the police, had issued an injunction freezing Trump's Article II Executive Branch authority.  This was at the behest of a gaggle of plaintiff USAID/NGO thieves looting the US Treasury for their own fattening. The court of appeals had initially paused much of Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali's injunction, and today that same three-judge panel issued Judge Ali's injunction the death blow, making clear that if anyone could check Trump's Article II authority to freeze spending it was the Article I and Article II branches of government—and not some mere Article III judge, and certainly not some gaggle of USAID/NGOs who had been eating fat at the trough of stolen taxpayer moneys. The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

We often talk about India's rise as a global power—but there's another story unfolding beneath the headlines.In rural and aspirational districts, many still grapple with the basics: safe water, quality education, healthcare they can reach, and livelihoods they can depend on. The gaps are stark—maternal and infant mortality remain high, learning outcomes lag, and over 80% of households in these areas survive on less than ₹5,000 a month.The real challenge? Ensuring that government schemes, resources, and opportunities actually reach the people who need them most—and empowering communities to take charge of their own development.In this episode, we are joined by Manmohan Singh, Co-Founder & CEO of Aspirational Bharat Collaborative (Bharat Collab)—an initiative working across 100+ India's most underserved districts to bridge the last-mile gap. Partnering with Panchayati Raj Institutions, faith leaders, NGOs, and local administrations, Bharat Collab is enabling communities to lead their own transformation.We explore:• Why the “bottom 100 million” need a different development approach• What last-mile service delivery really looks like on the ground• The power of “last-mile convergence” across governance, civil society, and markets• Lessons from health, education, and nutrition interventions with unexpected impact• Bharat Collab's vision for India@2047If you care about equity, grassroots empowerment, and turning development policy into lived reality—this episode is for you.CreditsHost: Shreya MGuest: Manmohan SinghResearch: Alisha CArtwork: Rajnikant SProduced by: The Good SightConcept: The Good SightFor feedback or to participate, write to us at contact@thegoodsight.org#AspirationalBharat #LastMileDelivery #BharatCollab #GrassrootsDevelopment #India2047 #PanchayatiRaj #HealthEquity #EducationForAll #SustainableLivelihoods #TheGoodSight

ALEJANDRO GRAJAL  Alejandro has lived and breathed the amazing natural ecosystems that make up our beloved planet. He is also an accomplished  and prolific author that currently leads Woodland Park Zoo, one of the largest zoos in America with a legacy of 126 years and one of the most important cultural and most visited institutions in Seattle.  He is internationally known for his vision to define a new relationship between humans and nature by helping to restore the deep, affective bond between people and animals. He advocates for zoos as the best community institutions to create a social movement for conservation, to foster science learning beyond the classroom, and to ensure that all people have access to nature, regardless of socioeconomic background. Before joining the zoo, Alejandro served as senior vice president for conservation, education and training at the Chicago Zoological Society/Brookfield Zoo, where he headed the Center for Conservation Leadership, oversaw field conservation and research programs for the Center for the Science of Animal Welfare, and supervised education programs. Previously, he had served as executive director of international programs for the National Audubon Society and director of Latin American programs at the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York. A noted author, Alejandro's publications include 45 peer-reviewed books, chapters, and scientific and popular articles covering topics which span the psychology of conservation, measuring the impact of environmental education, the sustainable use of natural resources and ornithology, among others. He leads the Climate Literacy Zoo Education Network (CliZEN), a coalition of zoological institutions, universities and NGOs.  In 2016, Trustees of the Chicago Zoological Society awarded him the prestigious George B. Raab Medal for Conservation Leadership, recognizing his lifelong contributions to environmental and species protection, and inspiring future generations of scientists and leaders to tackle big questions about living harmoniously with all beings on the planet.  In his spare time, he is an accomplished wildlife artist whose work has been exhibited in galleries in major cities. He currently serves on the boards of Wild Welfare, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums and World Trade Center Seattle. Alejandro earned his undergraduate degree in ecology from Simón Bolívar University in Caracas, Venezuela and his PhD in zoology from the University of Florida. GENERAL INFO| TOP OF THE GAME: Official website: https://topofthegame-thepod.com/ RSS Feed: https://feed.podbean.com/topofthegame-thepod/feed.xml Hosting service show website: https://topofthegame-thepod.podbean.com/ Javier's LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/javiersaade  SUPPORT & CONNECT: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/96934564 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61551086203755 Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOPOFGAMEpod Subscribe on Podbean: https://www.podbean.com/site/podcatcher/index/blog/vLKLE1SKjf6G Email us: info@topofthegame-thepod.com   THANK YOU FOR LISTENING – AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PLATFORMS

In this episode of The Powerful Ladies Podcast, we sit down with inspiring women from around the globe who are leading transformative initiatives in their communities. From addressing gender inequality and fostering democracy in Syria to supporting orphans in Kenya and fighting for indigenous women's rights in Tanzania, these leaders share their incredible journeys, the challenges they face, and how they stay motivated. We discuss the impact of shrinking international aid, the need for structural change in philanthropy, and the profound effects of local female leadership. Join us as we delve into their stories and learn how we can all contribute to making a difference. Chapters: 00:00 Introduction to the Powerful Ladies Series 01:39 Meet Lara Berry: Champion of Global Nonprofits 02:55 Naw K'nyaw Paw: Leading the Karen Women's Organization 05:23 Rajaa Ali: Advocating for Democracy in Syria 07:24 Consolata Nobert: Transforming Orphan Care in Kenya 11:11 Maanda: Empowering Indigenous Women in Tanzania 20:46 Impact of US Aid Cuts on Global Initiatives 45:13 Empowering Women in Patriarchal Societies 46:26 Challenges and Achievements in Women's Rights 47:19 Advice for Women in the US 47:36 Funding and Support for Women's Organizations 58:25 The Importance of Long-Term Partnerships 01:05:41 Staying Motivated and Inspired 01:16:30 Final Reflections and Call to Action The Powerful Ladies podcast, hosted by business coach and strategist Kara Duffy features candid conversations with entrepreneurs, creatives, athletes, chefs, writers, scientists, and more. Every Wednesday, new episodes explore what it means to lead with purpose, create with intention, and define success on your own terms. Whether you're growing a business, changing careers, or asking bigger questions, these stories remind you: you're not alone, and you're more powerful than you think. Explore more at thepowerfulladies.com and karaduffy.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Your daily news in under three minutes. At Al Jazeera Podcasts, we want to hear from you, our listeners. So, please head to https://www.aljazeera.com/survey and tell us your thoughts about this show and other Al Jazeera podcasts. It only takes a few minutes! Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

From his childhood in Chile, to years working for Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supporting sustainable healthcare in West and Central Africa, Dr. Luis Pizarro has spent a lifetime thinking about the intersection of healthcare, equity and social justice. In this episode, Dr. Pizarro discusses his clinical roots and his current leadership role at Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi), and how his years of experience on the ground inform his understanding of the future of global health.

Beau, Luca, and Lewis Brackpool discuss the hotel protests getting bigger, Labour's red meat, and the NGOs steering immigration policy. Islander #4 is out! Buy it here: https://shop.lotuseaters.com

Doctors Without Borders and other NGOs have raised concerns about anti-migrant groups preventing non-South Africans from accessing healthcare services. The South African government has called on all communities to uphold the rule of law, respect human dignity. So why are activists blocking health clinics and hospitals?   The African Union sends a delegation to South Sudan to encourage the warring sides in the country to revive a 2018 peace deal and pave the way for elections.  Can they bring both sides back to the table?   And as Africa Fashion Week London comes to an end, how can African fashion leverage its global appeal?Presenter: Richard Kagoe Producers: Tom Kavanagh and Stefania Okereke Technical Producer: Francesca Dunne Senior Producer: Patricia Whitehorne Editors: Andre Lombard and Alice Muthengi

Doctors Without Borders and other NGOs have raised concerns about anti-migrant groups preventing non-South Africans from accessing healthcare services. The South African government has called on all communities to uphold the rule of law, respect human dignity. So why are activists blocking health clinics and hospitals? The African Union sends a delegation to South Sudan to encourage the warring sides in the country to revive a 2018 peace deal and pave the way for elections. Can they bring both sides back to the table? And as Africa Fashion Week London comes to an end, how can African fashion leverage its global appeal?Presenter: Richard Kagoe Producers: Tom Kavanagh and Stefania Okereke Technical Producer: Francesca Dunne Senior Producer: Patricia Whitehorne Editors: Andre Lombard and Alice Muthengi

In this episode of A Shot in the Arm Podcast, host Ben Plumley engages in a comprehensive discussion with journalist and author Emily Bass about the current state of global health, specifically focusing on HIV/AIDS. Recorded in sunny Sacramento, they reflect on the extraordinary events of the past few months and assess the alignment of innovation and equity in global health. Their conversation covers a wide range of topics, including the importance of community-based care and accountability, the evolving role of international NGOs, and the critical nature of differentiated service delivery in HIV treatment. They also discuss the geopolitical uncertainties affecting global health funding and the influence of recent political changes in the US on the future of the global HIV response. They touch upon the significant role of entities like PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and UNAIDS, and the necessity for national contributions and regional procurement in sustaining HIV programs. Emily emphasizes the need to preserve community-based accountability and the value of innovative, country-led solutions for delivering healthcare. They conclude with a commitment to delve deeper into HIV prevention in a future episode, recognizing the ongoing challenges and opportunities in achieving global HIV/AIDS objectives. Emily's book: To End a Plague: America's Fight to Defeat AIDS in Africa https://www.amazon.com/End-Plague-Americas-Defeat-Africa/dp/1541762436 Emily's recent essay in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/14/opinion/pepfar-hiv-foreign-aid.html Emily's Substack: https://substack.com/@emilysbass Ben's Substack: https://substack.com/@benplumley1 Chapters: 00:00 Introduction and Host Welcome 00:36 Guest Introduction: Emily's Expertise 02:26 Global Health Check-In 03:11 Humanitarian Crises and HIV 05:00 Impact of Global Health Policies 06:44 HIV Treatment Challenges 08:57 Sustainability and Ownership in HIV Response 12:47 Global Health Architecture and Funding 16:33 The Role of PEPFAR and Global Fund 22:25 Future of Global Health Initiatives 38:25 Global Fund's Role in Procurement and National Contributions 40:33 US Congress and Global Health Budget 42:15 Innovation in Global AIDS Response 49:30 The Importance of Differentiated Service Delivery 01:00:58 Community Accountability in Public Health 01:09:38 Challenges and Future of HIV Prevention Join the Conversation! How do you see the future of global health unfolding? Share your thoughts in the comments! Subscribe & Stay Updated: Listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or your favorite podcast platform. Watch on YouTube & subscribe for more in-depth global health discussions: www.youtube.com/@shotarmpodcast

How do you prepare leaders to solve Brazil's toughest challenges? Denis Mizne, CEO of the Lemann Foundation, shares how they're eradicating illiteracy, boosting education, and developing changemakers who bridge political divides and drive real impact. How can a country unlock its full potential by investing in both education and leadership? In this episode, Denis Mizne reveals how one of Brazil's largest philanthropic organizations is working to eradicate illiteracy, improve middle school outcomes, and prepare future leaders to tackle complex social challenges. We explore the Lemann Leadership Network—bringing together talented Brazilians from across the political spectrum—and learn how its fellows are making an impact in government, NGOs, academia, and business. Denis shares insights on creating constructive dialogue in polarized times, preventing brain drain, and measuring leadership impact in a meaningful way. If you're passionate about leadership development, education reform, social entrepreneurship, or Brazil's future, this conversation offers actionable lessons and inspiring real-world examples from one of Latin America's most influential foundations. Visit our Knowledge Hub at Lidji.org for information on 300 case studies and interviews with remarkable leaders in philanthropy, sustainability and social entrepreneurship.  

If you love what we do, become a premium YouTube Subscriber or join our Patreon: • https://www.patreon.com/mapitforward• https://www.youtube.com/mapitforwardCheck out our on-demand workshops here: • https://mapitforward.coffee/workshopsConsider joining one of our Mastermind Groups here:• https://mapitforward.coffee/groupcoachingJoin our mailing list:• https://mapitforward.coffee/mailinglist••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••This is the first of a five-part series featuring Nora Burkey, Executive Director of the US-based Nonprofit, The Chain Collaborative, on The Daily Coffee Pro Podcast by Map It Forward, hosted by Map It Forward Founder Lee Safar.Throughout this series, Lee and Nora attempt to answer the question, "Will the Development Sector in Coffee Survive?" and explore all the layers that come with it.The five episodes of this series are:1. The Evolution of Development in Coffee - https://youtu.be/Gipyuhd8frw2. Do We Need Development Work In Coffee? - https://youtu.be/Y_QYBav4SbM3. How Money Flows in the Coffee Development Sector - https://youtu.be/mGlrkxQL1q44. Myths and Realities of the Coffee Development Sector - https://youtu.be/YkjD11xqTWY5. The Future of Coffee and Development - https://youtu.be/2wSVlW__unA In this episode of the podcast series, Lee and Nora explore the historical context and evolution of non-profits, certifications, and the role of government and corporate control in shaping the industry. The conversation dives deep into whether the coffee sector's current structure necessitates the involvement of non-profits and NGOs and scrutinizes their impact on coffee producers and communities. Tune in for an insightful discussion about the complexities and challenges facing the global coffee sector.The article Nora references in this article is: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/archives/article/2022/03/23/reparations-as-philanthropy-radically-rethinking-giving-in-africa_5979040_113.html Connect with The Chain Collaborative and Nora Burkey here:nora@thechaincollaborative.orghttps://thechaincollaborative.org/ https://www.instagram.com/thechaincollaborative/ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Connect with Map It Forward here: Website | Instagram | Mailing list

Summary: What does it really mean to lead through a feminist lens? In this episode of NGO Soul + Strategy, I sit down with Jayanta Bora, a seasoned People & Culture expert who has helped shape leadership practices across major NGOs. Drawing from his own matrilinear upbringing and decades of experience, Jayanta explores feminist leadership not as a gendered concept but as a deliberate, power-aware leadership practice rooted in justice and equity.Jayanta's Bio:Over 30 years of experience in People & Culture, OD, OB, and HR in the nonprofit sector.Former Executive Director of Human Resources at Plan International.Visiting faculty at NMIMS Global Access School and Tezpur University.Leadership roles at Oxfam, ChildFund, and other global organizations.We Discuss:What feminist leadership is—and what it is not.The origins of Jayanta's interest in feminist leadership, rooted in a matrilinear culture.Why feminist leadership is not about gender, but about power analysis.The seven behavioral competencies of feminist leadership:Self-awareness and reflectionSelf-care and caring for othersInclusion and dismantling biasAccountable collaborationSharing power and transparent decision makingRespectful feedback and conflict resolutionCourage and zero tolerance for discriminationThe need for more longitudinal research on feminist leadership effectiveness.How feminist leadership differs from traditional or transformational leadership styles.Quotes: “If you practice feminist leadership, you have no need for DEI policies, since intersectionality of identities is baked in.” “I am a male feminist.”Resources: Jayanta's LinkedIn profileLet's stay connectedYou can also watch this episode on YouTube and subscribe to be the first to know when new episodes or other thought pieces are released.Have a challenge or opportunity in your nonprofit or philanthropic organization that you'd like to explore? Feel free to reach out to Tosca directly at tosca(at)5oaksconsulting(dot)org.And if you'd like more insights on nonprofit leadership, organizational change, and culture, you can follow Tosca on LinkedIn.

Sonita Alizada grew up in Afghanistan under that Taliban, and then later in Iran, in a culture where females faced all kinds of trials, including forced marriage for young girls, and much more. Sonita found refuge and nurture via education by NGOs working in Iran, and through which she discovered a talent as a rap artist, with songs like Daughters For Sale.

"Die Welt ist ein Dorf", so heißt Isolde Ruhdorfers Newsletter, den sie für die Krautreporter schreibt. Darin fragt sie, was die Geschehnisse im Ausland mit uns zu tun haben und was wir von den Entwicklungen in anderen Ländern lernen können. Mit einem Faktencheck von Nándor Hulverscheidt.

In a nod to one of the worst people of the 20th century, the government has been covertly poisoning the general public for decades through the water supply with fluoride, atrazine, and glyphosate. The water that isn't being poisoned is stolen by multinational food conglomerates like Nestlé. Kissinger would also appreciate the role of Public-Private Partnerships in the ownership of the water supply, as cities vote to outsource the task of managing public water utilities. Milei is continuing the policy of privatizing the water supply of Argentina to a state-owned water conglomerate in Israel. NGOs like the United Nations are also making decisions on access to water based on dubious climate science and doomer scenarios. The Octopus of Global Control Audiobook: https://amzn.to/3xu0rMm Hypocrazy Audiobook: https://amzn.to/4aogwms Website: www.Macroaggressions.io Activist Post: www.activistpost.com Sponsors: Chemical Free Body: https://www.chemicalfreebody.com Promo Code: MACRO C60 Purple Power: https://c60purplepower.com/ Promo Code: MACRO Wise Wolf Gold & Silver: www.Macroaggressions.gold LegalShield: www.DontGetPushedAround.com EMP Shield: www.EMPShield.com Promo Code: MACRO ECI Development: https://info.ecidevelopment.com/-get-to-know-us/macro-aggressions Christian Yordanov's Health Program: www.livelongerformula.com/macro Privacy Academy: https://privacyacademy.com/step/privacy-action-plan-checkout-2/?ref=5620 Brain Supreme: www.BrainSupreme.co Promo Code: MACRO Above Phone: abovephone.com/macro Promo Code: MACRO Van Man: https://vanman.shop/?ref=MACRO Promo Code: MACRO My Patriot Supply: www.PrepareWithMacroaggressions.com Activist Post: www.ActivistPost.com Natural Blaze: www.NaturalBlaze.com Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/macroaggressionspodcast

What if reimagining how cities are designed could make women safer? In Cairo, sexual harassment and violence against women on the streets has been endemic. Women don't feel safe enough to walk or take public transport. A pioneering programme called Safer Cities, is hoping to find the solution through radical urban redesigns, women friendly spaces and raising awareness about sexual harassment. Salma El-Wardany, who was born in Cairo, visits a women's only park in Imbaba, Giza and meets Samaha who runs the park. She not only oversees the children playing, but also organises events for local women with advice and support. Salma visits Zenein Market in Giza, which was redesigned to better support the majority of female sellers there. They show Salma the older part of the market which is yet to be regenerated. Salma also speaks to Caroline Nassif, who worked as Project Officer at UN Women, as well as local NGOs, and Minister Manal Awad Mikhail who was one of the driving forces behind the scheme across locations.

Can artificial intelligence actually help you raise more money—and build better donor relationships? This week on Nonprofit Nation, we're diving into the future of fundraising with Juliet MacDowell, a veteran development strategist who's raised over $1 billion for global NGOs and is now the founder of Mission AI.Juliet combines 25 years of hands-on fundraising experience with AI-powered tools to help nonprofits and social enterprises work smarter—not harder. We talk about how AI is reshaping donor engagement, what fundraising teams need to know now, and how organizations can embrace innovation without losing the human touch.Whether you're a seasoned fundraiser or just curious about how AI is impacting our sector, this episode is full of practical insights, big-picture thinking, and a hopeful look at what's next for nonprofit development.

Gaza: Alarm over Israeli moves to ban NGOs in Strip and occupied West Bank Uganda close to hosting two million people but lacks resources, warns UNHCR80 years since Hiroshima, nuclear ban remains top UN disarmament goal 

Moving between shower drains, aqueducts, rain gardens, and even kitchen sinks, Replumbing the City: Water Management as Climate Adaptation in Los Angeles (University of California Press, 2025) traces the enormous urban waterscape of Los Angeles in a state of flux. For more than a century, the city of Los Angeles has relied on faraway water for the vast majority of its municipal supply, but climate change is making these distant sources much less dependable. To adapt, Angelenos—including city engineers, advocates at NGOs, and residents—are developing new water supplies within the space of the city.  Sayd Randle's ethnography examines the labor of replumbing LA's sprawling water system, detailing how a desire to sustain unlimited and uninterrupted water provision for paying customers is reshaping the urban environment and its management. Tracking how such projects redistribute the work of water management, the book explores thorny questions of how the labor of climate adaptation should be mobilized and valued. This episode is hosted by Elena Sobrino. Elena is a lecturer in Anthropology at Tufts University. Her research explores volunteer work, union histories, and environmentalism in the Flint water crisis. She is currently writing about the politics of fatigue and crisis, and teaching classes on science and technology studies, ethnographies of crisis, and global racisms. You can read more about her work at elenasobrino.site. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Who isn't being invited to the conversation?...Today, Abbie and Mil explore ways to create “grains of empowerment” that enable every individual to participate in community-based solutions to our global problems, beginning with each of us asking the question “who is missing?” in every space we enter; systematically inviting people with differing perspective, identities, and experiences to the table; and naming the invisible patterns of communication that keep us from hearing each other in conversation. ...As a board director, mediator, and international ESG supply chain strategist, Mil Niepold, has spent her career at the intersection of partnerships, policy, and sustainability—architecting inclusive, bottom-line solutions that address climate change while improving human rights at the same time.  Career-wide, Mil has served on, and chaired, ESG-related advisory boards, helped Fortune 500 companies launch integrated gender and climate supply chain strategies, and advised more than fifty companies, governments, and NGOs on climate-resilient human rights due-diligence strategies, with a particular focus on women's empowerment and the elimination of child and forced labor.  A lifelong consensus builder, she has mediated more than forty multi-stakeholder dialogues on complex economic and social issues such as agricultural policy, climate-resilient livelihoods, child and forced labor, rural land use, and gender policy.  Mil has made policy reform recommendations to six governments around climate, gender, and human rights, and led teams in designing and delivering international sustainability, negotiation, and leadership trainings.  Recognized for expertise in social inclusion, Mil has appeared as keynote, panelist, and presenter with institutions such as University of Pennsylvania Law School, Climate Investment Fund, U.S. State Department, World Bank, and the United Nations....Stories Lived. Stories Told. is created, produced & hosted by Abbie VanMeter.Stories Lived. Stories Told. is an initiative of the CMM Institute for Personal and Social Evolution....Music for Stories Lived. Stories Told. is created by Rik Spann....⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Explore all things Stories Lived. Stories Told. here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Explore all things CMM Institute here.

Moving between shower drains, aqueducts, rain gardens, and even kitchen sinks, Replumbing the City: Water Management as Climate Adaptation in Los Angeles (University of California Press, 2025) traces the enormous urban waterscape of Los Angeles in a state of flux. For more than a century, the city of Los Angeles has relied on faraway water for the vast majority of its municipal supply, but climate change is making these distant sources much less dependable. To adapt, Angelenos—including city engineers, advocates at NGOs, and residents—are developing new water supplies within the space of the city.  Sayd Randle's ethnography examines the labor of replumbing LA's sprawling water system, detailing how a desire to sustain unlimited and uninterrupted water provision for paying customers is reshaping the urban environment and its management. Tracking how such projects redistribute the work of water management, the book explores thorny questions of how the labor of climate adaptation should be mobilized and valued. This episode is hosted by Elena Sobrino. Elena is a lecturer in Anthropology at Tufts University. Her research explores volunteer work, union histories, and environmentalism in the Flint water crisis. She is currently writing about the politics of fatigue and crisis, and teaching classes on science and technology studies, ethnographies of crisis, and global racisms. You can read more about her work at elenasobrino.site. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/environmental-studies

Moving between shower drains, aqueducts, rain gardens, and even kitchen sinks, Replumbing the City: Water Management as Climate Adaptation in Los Angeles (University of California Press, 2025) traces the enormous urban waterscape of Los Angeles in a state of flux. For more than a century, the city of Los Angeles has relied on faraway water for the vast majority of its municipal supply, but climate change is making these distant sources much less dependable. To adapt, Angelenos—including city engineers, advocates at NGOs, and residents—are developing new water supplies within the space of the city.  Sayd Randle's ethnography examines the labor of replumbing LA's sprawling water system, detailing how a desire to sustain unlimited and uninterrupted water provision for paying customers is reshaping the urban environment and its management. Tracking how such projects redistribute the work of water management, the book explores thorny questions of how the labor of climate adaptation should be mobilized and valued. This episode is hosted by Elena Sobrino. Elena is a lecturer in Anthropology at Tufts University. Her research explores volunteer work, union histories, and environmentalism in the Flint water crisis. She is currently writing about the politics of fatigue and crisis, and teaching classes on science and technology studies, ethnographies of crisis, and global racisms. You can read more about her work at elenasobrino.site. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

Moving between shower drains, aqueducts, rain gardens, and even kitchen sinks, Replumbing the City: Water Management as Climate Adaptation in Los Angeles (University of California Press, 2025) traces the enormous urban waterscape of Los Angeles in a state of flux. For more than a century, the city of Los Angeles has relied on faraway water for the vast majority of its municipal supply, but climate change is making these distant sources much less dependable. To adapt, Angelenos—including city engineers, advocates at NGOs, and residents—are developing new water supplies within the space of the city.  Sayd Randle's ethnography examines the labor of replumbing LA's sprawling water system, detailing how a desire to sustain unlimited and uninterrupted water provision for paying customers is reshaping the urban environment and its management. Tracking how such projects redistribute the work of water management, the book explores thorny questions of how the labor of climate adaptation should be mobilized and valued. This episode is hosted by Elena Sobrino. Elena is a lecturer in Anthropology at Tufts University. Her research explores volunteer work, union histories, and environmentalism in the Flint water crisis. She is currently writing about the politics of fatigue and crisis, and teaching classes on science and technology studies, ethnographies of crisis, and global racisms. You can read more about her work at elenasobrino.site. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Moving between shower drains, aqueducts, rain gardens, and even kitchen sinks, Replumbing the City: Water Management as Climate Adaptation in Los Angeles (University of California Press, 2025) traces the enormous urban waterscape of Los Angeles in a state of flux. For more than a century, the city of Los Angeles has relied on faraway water for the vast majority of its municipal supply, but climate change is making these distant sources much less dependable. To adapt, Angelenos—including city engineers, advocates at NGOs, and residents—are developing new water supplies within the space of the city.  Sayd Randle's ethnography examines the labor of replumbing LA's sprawling water system, detailing how a desire to sustain unlimited and uninterrupted water provision for paying customers is reshaping the urban environment and its management. Tracking how such projects redistribute the work of water management, the book explores thorny questions of how the labor of climate adaptation should be mobilized and valued. This episode is hosted by Elena Sobrino. Elena is a lecturer in Anthropology at Tufts University. Her research explores volunteer work, union histories, and environmentalism in the Flint water crisis. She is currently writing about the politics of fatigue and crisis, and teaching classes on science and technology studies, ethnographies of crisis, and global racisms. You can read more about her work at elenasobrino.site. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-west

Moving between shower drains, aqueducts, rain gardens, and even kitchen sinks, Replumbing the City: Water Management as Climate Adaptation in Los Angeles (University of California Press, 2025) traces the enormous urban waterscape of Los Angeles in a state of flux. For more than a century, the city of Los Angeles has relied on faraway water for the vast majority of its municipal supply, but climate change is making these distant sources much less dependable. To adapt, Angelenos—including city engineers, advocates at NGOs, and residents—are developing new water supplies within the space of the city.  Sayd Randle's ethnography examines the labor of replumbing LA's sprawling water system, detailing how a desire to sustain unlimited and uninterrupted water provision for paying customers is reshaping the urban environment and its management. Tracking how such projects redistribute the work of water management, the book explores thorny questions of how the labor of climate adaptation should be mobilized and valued. This episode is hosted by Elena Sobrino. Elena is a lecturer in Anthropology at Tufts University. Her research explores volunteer work, union histories, and environmentalism in the Flint water crisis. She is currently writing about the politics of fatigue and crisis, and teaching classes on science and technology studies, ethnographies of crisis, and global racisms. You can read more about her work at elenasobrino.site. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Lisa interviews former House Oversight Chairman & FOX News Contributor Jason Chaffetz about newly declassified documents from the Trump-Russia investigation. They discuss evidence suggesting Hillary Clinton’s campaign orchestrated the Steele Dossier to damage Donald Trump, with alleged involvement from top Obama officials. Chaffetz criticizes the FBI’s misuse of FISA warrants and the lack of accountability for intelligence officials. The conversation also covers media bias, the Benghazi email scandal, and ongoing investigations. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday. Purchase Jason's NEW Book - They're Coming for You: How Deep State Spies, NGOs, and Woke Corporations Plan to Push You Out of the EconomySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we sit down with John Peaveler, the founder and principal consultant of Humane Innovations LLC, a company driven by real-world experience in animal control, shelter systems, wildlife management, and disaster response. John brings over 20 years of global expertise to the table, having launched the first animal shelter and control program in Kuwait in 2004 and serving in leadership roles across NGOs and response teams worldwide (Humane Innovations, Humane Innovations).We dig into:How John's work in Kuwait shaped his vision for humane, effective animal capture and control methods. (Humane Innovations, Humane Innovations)The founding of Humane Innovations as a solution-driven platform offering professional-grade equipment, field training, capture methods, and consulting. (Humane Innovations)His experiences responding to major disaster situations internationally—including in the Philippines, Japan, Haiti, Turkey, Ukraine, and the U.S.—and lessons learned from coordinating animal care during crises. (Humane Innovations)The intersection of product design, training, and operational support in safer and more efficient animal rescue, shelter, and field programs. (Humane Innovations)John's role as an instructor and speaker for major animal care organizations such as NACA and the World Organization for Animal Health, and what drives his passion for helping professionals and communities prepare for and manage animal-related emergencies (Humane Innovations).Listeners will walk away with:Real-world stories from disaster zones and shelter programs.Insights into what it takes to develop field‑tested equipment that saves countless animal lives.Advice for trainers, responders, and agencies looking to build or scale humane animal-care capacity.Why preparation and proper tools can make all the difference when disaster strikes—both for animals and humans.Tune in for a deep conversation that blends innovation, compassion, leadership, and frontline ingenuity.

In 1997, Jessica Matthews' landmark Foreign Affairs essay “Power Shift” captured the growing influence of NGOs and other non-state actors in shaping global affairs. But nearly three decades later, that tide has turned. A provocative new piece in Foreign Affairs argues that the age of NGOs is over—and states are reasserting dominance. Joining me to unpack this shift is Jennifer Hadden, co-author of the new article and Associate Professor at Brown University. We discuss the heyday of NGOs in the 1990s, what led to their decline, and what this reversal means for the future of human rights, democracy and freedom worldwide.  Foreign Affairs     

In this episode of F-Stop Collaborate and Listen, host Matt Payne sits down with Steven Adams, a humanitarian photographer with a diverse background in biology, veterinary medicine, and global health. They discuss Steven's journey from scientific research to international development and how those experiences shape his visual storytelling, especially his focus on hope and agency rather than suffering. Steven shares engaging stories from the field, including work with pastoralist communities in Eastern Africa and youth shelters in India, and dives into the evolving ethics of humanitarian photography. The episode touches on the importance of empowering local storytellers, the practicalities of client collaboration, and Steven's commitment to enabling NGOs and individuals to better tell their own stories. It's a thoughtful conversation loaded with insight for anyone interested in purposeful photography or the intersection of compassion and creativity. Links Mentioned: Steven's Photo Brief Template Lion Movie with Dev Patel Support the Podcast on Patreon Subscribe to Matt's Mailing List Xuan Hui-Ng's Podcast Episode Nevada Wier Gerald Slota

Mike has officially been bit by the Town Baseball bug!!!Nancy Pelosi erupts when asked by CNN's Jake Tapper about allegations of insider tradingFormer House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared agitated Wednesday when CNN's Jake Tapper confronted her about insider trading allegations.On "The Lead," Tapper tried to show President Donald Trump's comments earlier that day accusing Pelosi of becoming rich "by having inside information" in stock trading. When he attempted to read Trump's comments after a technical error, she quickly shut him down."Why do you have to read that?" Pelosi erupted. "We‘re here to talk about the 60th anniversary of Medicaid. That‘s what I agreed to come to talk… and what that means in the election."'Biden migrant child hotline ignored 65K calls': Shocking testimony rocks Homeland Security hearingDuring a heated House Homeland Security Committee hearing, shocking revelations emerged about the Biden administration's migrant child protection efforts. Lawmakers learned that a federally operated hotline, meant to report safety issues for unaccompanied migrant children, failed to respond to 65,000 calls between August 2023 and January 2025. Ali Hopper, founder of GUARD Against Trafficking, testified that both federal agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are failing to protect vulnerable children caught in the ongoing border crisis.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Almost two years after the October 7th attacks, facts about the state of life in Gaza are almost impossible to glean from the daily news. Much of what used to be mainstream journalism has become political activism, and Palestinian allied NGOs, UN organizations, and international press are using selective information as a weapon. Are Palestinians […]

Almost two years after the October 7th attacks, facts about the state of life in Gaza are almost impossible to glean from the daily news. Much of what used to be mainstream journalism has become political activism, and Palestinian allied NGOs, UN organizations, and international press are using selective information as a weapon. Are Palestinians starving? Or is this just another lie in the war on Israel? Matti Friedman joins us to talk about his important piece on Gaza for The Free Press. Matti Friedman is a Jerusalem-based columnist for The Free Press. He's an award-winning journalist and author of four nonfiction books, of which the most recent is Who by Fire: Leonard Cohen in the Sinai. A former Associated Press correspondent and essayist for the New York Times opinion section, he previously wrote a monthly feature for Tablet Magazine. His writing has appeared in Smithsonian Magazine, the Atlantic, and elsewhere. Read the transcript here.Subscribe to our Substack here.

Mike has officially been bit by the Town Baseball bug!!!Nancy Pelosi erupts when asked by CNN's Jake Tapper about allegations of insider tradingFormer House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared agitated Wednesday when CNN's Jake Tapper confronted her about insider trading allegations.On "The Lead," Tapper tried to show President Donald Trump's comments earlier that day accusing Pelosi of becoming rich "by having inside information" in stock trading. When he attempted to read Trump's comments after a technical error, she quickly shut him down."Why do you have to read that?" Pelosi erupted. "We‘re here to talk about the 60th anniversary of Medicaid. That‘s what I agreed to come to talk… and what that means in the election."'Biden migrant child hotline ignored 65K calls': Shocking testimony rocks Homeland Security hearingDuring a heated House Homeland Security Committee hearing, shocking revelations emerged about the Biden administration's migrant child protection efforts. Lawmakers learned that a federally operated hotline, meant to report safety issues for unaccompanied migrant children, failed to respond to 65,000 calls between August 2023 and January 2025. Ali Hopper, founder of GUARD Against Trafficking, testified that both federal agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are failing to protect vulnerable children caught in the ongoing border crisis. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We've covered the US Agency for International Development, or USAID, pretty consistently on Statecraft, since our first interview on PEPFAR, the flagship anti-AIDS program, in 2023. When DOGE came to USAID, I was extremely critical of the cuts to lifesaving aid, and the abrupt, pointlessly harmful ways in which they were enacted. In March, I wrote, “The DOGE team has axed the most effective and efficient programs at USAID, and forced out the chief economist, who was brought in to oversee a more aggressive push toward efficiency.”Today, we're talking to that forced-out chief economist, Dean Karlan. Dean spent two and a half years at the helm of the first-ever Office of the Chief Economist at USAID. In that role, he tried to help USAID get better value from its foreign aid spending. His office shifted $1.7 billion of spending towards programs with stronger evidence of effectiveness. He explains how he achieved this, building a start-up within a massive bureaucracy. I should note that Dean is one of the titans of development economics, leading some of the most important initiatives in the field (I won't list them, but see here for details), and I think there's a plausible case he deserves a Nobel.Throughout this conversation, Dean makes a point much better than I could: the status quo at USAID needed a lot of improvement. The same political mechanisms that get foreign aid funded by Congress also created major vulnerabilities for foreign aid, vulnerabilities that DOGE seized on. Dean believes foreign aid is hugely valuable, a good thing for us to spend our time, money, and resources on. But there's a lot USAID could do differently to make its marginal dollar spent more efficient.DOGE could have made USAID much more accountable and efficient by listening to people like Dean, and reformers of foreign aid should think carefully about Dean's criticisms of USAID, and his points for how to make foreign aid not just resilient but politically popular in the long term.We discuss* What does the Chief Economist do?* Why does 170% percent of USAID funds come already earmarked by Congress?* Why is evaluating program effectiveness institutionally difficult?* Why don't we just do cash transfers for everything?* Why institutions like USAID have trouble prioritizing* Should USAID get rid of gender/environment/fairness in procurement rules?* Did it rely too much on a small group of contractors?* What's changed in development economics over the last 20 years?* Should USAID spend more on governance and less on other forms of aid? * How DOGE killed USAID — and how to bring it back better* Is depoliticizing foreign aid even possible?* Did USAID build “soft power” for the United States?This is a long conversation: you can jump to a specific section with the index above. If you just want to hear about Dean's experience with DOGE, you can click here or go to the 45-minute mark in the audio. And if you want my abbreviated summary of the conversation, see these two Twitter threads. But I think the full conversation is enlightening, especially if you want to understand the American foreign aid system. Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious edits.Our past coverage of USAIDDean, I'm curious about the limits of your authority. What can the Chief Economist of USAID do? What can they make people do?There had never been an Office of the Chief Economist before. In a sense, I was running a startup, within a 13,000-employee agency that had fairly baked-in, decentralized processes for doing things.Congress would say, "This is how much to spend on this sector and these countries." What you actually fund was decided by missions in the individual countries. It was exciting to have that purview across the world and across many areas, not just economic development, but also education, social protection, agriculture. But the reality is, we were running a consulting unit within USAID, trying to advise others on how to use evidence more effectively in order to maximize impact for every dollar spent.We were able to make some institutional changes, focused on basically a two-pronged strategy. One, what are the institutional enablers — the rules and the processes for how things get done — that are changeable? And two, let's get our hands dirty working with the budget holders who say, "I would love to use the evidence that's out there, please help guide us to be more effective with what we're doing."There were a lot of willing and eager people within USAID. We did not lack support to make that happen. We never would've achieved anything, had there not been an eager workforce who heard our mission and knocked on our door to say, "Please come help us do that."What do you mean when you say USAID has decentralized processes for doing things?Earmarks and directives come down from Congress. [Some are] about sector: $1 billion dollars to spend on primary school education to improve children's learning outcomes, for instance. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) [See our interview with former PEPFAR lead Mark Dybul] is one of the biggest earmarks to spend money specifically on specific diseases. Then there's directives that come down about how to allocate across countries.Those are two conversations I have very little engagement on, because some of that comes from Congress. It's a very complicated, intertwined set of constraints that are then adhered to and allocated to the different countries. Then what ends up happening is — this is the decentralized part — you might be a Foreign Service Officer (FSO) working in a country, your focus is education, and you're given a budget for that year from the earmark for education and told, "Go spend $80 million on a new award in education." You're working to figure out, “How should we spend that?” There might be some technical support from headquarters, but ultimately, you're responsible for making those decisions. Part of our role was to help guide those FSOs towards programs that had more evidence of effectiveness.Could you talk more about these earmarks? There's a popular perception that USAID decides what it wants to fund. But these big categories of humanitarian aid, or health, or governance, are all decided in Congress. Often it's specific congressmen or congresswomen who really want particular pet projects to be funded.That's right. And the number that I heard is that something in the ballpark of 150-170% of USAID funds were earmarked. That might sound horrible, but it's not.How is that possible?Congress double-dips, in a sense: we have two different demands. You must spend money on these two things. If the same dollar can satisfy both, that was completely legitimate. There was no hiding of that fact. It's all public record, and it all comes from congressional acts that create these earmarks. There's nothing hidden underneath the hood.Will you give me examples of double earmarking in practice? What kinds of goals could you satisfy with the same dollar?There's an earmark for Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) to do research, and an earmark for education. If DIV is going to fund an evaluation of something in the education space, there's a possibility that that can satisfy a dual earmark requirement. That's the kind of thing that would happen. One is an earmark for a process: “Do really careful, rigorous evaluations of interventions, so that we learn more about what works and what doesn't." And another is, "Here's money that has to be spent on education." That would be an example of a double dip on an earmark.And within those categories, the job of Chief Economist was to help USAID optimize the funding? If you're spending $2 billion on education, “Let's be as effective with that money as possible.”That's exactly right. We had two teams, Evidence Use and Evidence Generation. It was exactly what it sounds like. If there was an earmark for $1 billion dollars on education, the Evidence Use team worked to do systematic analysis: “What is the best evidence out there for what works for education for primary school learning outcomes?” Then, “How can we map that evidence to the kinds of things that USAID funds? What are the kinds of questions that need to be figured out?”It's not a cookie-cutter answer. A systematic review doesn't say, "Here's the intervention. Now just roll it out everywhere." We had to work with the missions — with people who know the local area — to understand, “What is the local context? How do you appropriately adapt this program in a procurement and contextualize it to that country, so that you can hire people to use that evidence?”Our Evidence Generation team was trying to identify knowledge gaps where the agency could lead in producing more knowledge about what works and what doesn't. If there was something innovative that USAID was funding, we were huge advocates of, "Great, let's contribute to the global public good of knowledge, so that we can learn more in the future about what to do, and so others can learn from us. So let's do good, careful evaluations."Being able to demonstrate what good came of an intervention also serves the purpose of accountability. But I've never been a fan of doing really rigorous evaluations just for the sake of accountability. It could discourage innovation and risk-taking, because if you fail, you'd be seen as a failure, rather than as a win for learning that an idea people thought was reasonable didn't turn out to work. It also probably leads to overspending on research, rather than doing programs. If you're doing something just for accountability purposes, you're better off with audits. "Did you actually deliver the program that you said you would deliver, or not?"Awards over $100 million dollars did go through the front office of USAID for approval. We added a process — it was actually a revamped old process — where they stopped off in my office. We were able to provide guidance on the cost-effectiveness of proposals that would then be factored into the decision on whether to proceed. When I was first trying to understand Project 2025, because we saw that as a blueprint for what changes to expect, one of the changes they proposed was actually that process. I remember thinking to myself, "We just did that. Hopefully this change that they had in mind when they wrote that was what we actually put in place." But I thought of it as a healthy process that had an impact, not just on that one award, but also in helping set an example for smaller awards of, “This is how to be more evidence-based in what you're doing.”[Further reading: Here's a position paper Karlan's office at USAID put out in 2024 on how USAID should evaluate cost-effectiveness.]You've also argued that USAID should take into account more research that has already been done on global development and humanitarian aid. Your ideal wouldn't be for USAID to do really rigorous research on every single thing it does. You can get a lot better just by incorporating things that other people have learned.That's absolutely right. I can say this as a researcher: to no one's surprise, it's more bureaucratic to work with the government as a research funder than it is to work with foundations and nimble NGOs. If I want to evaluate a particular program, and you give me a choice of who the funder should be, the only reason I would choose government is if it had a faster on-ramp to policy by being inside.The people who are setting policy should not be putting more weight on evidence that they paid for. In fact, one of the slogans that I often used at USAID is, "Evidence doesn't care who pays for it." We shouldn't be, as an agency, putting more weight on the things that we evaluated vs. things that others evaluated without us, and that we can learn from, mimic, replicate, and scale.We — and the we here is everyone, researchers and policymakers — put too much weight on individual studies, in a horrible way. The first to publish on something gets more accolades than the second, third and fourth. That's not healthy when it comes to policy. If we put too much weight on our own evidence, we end up putting too much weight on individual studies we happen to do. That's not healthy either.That was one of the big pieces of culture change that we tried to push internally at USAID. We had this one slide that we used repeatedly that showed the plethora of evidence out there in the world compared to 20 years ago. A lot more studies are now usable. You can aggregate that evidence and form much better policies.You had political support to innovate that not everybody going into government has. On the other hand, USAID is a big, bureaucratic entity. There are all kinds of cross-pressures against being super-effective per dollar spent. In doing culture change, what kinds of roadblocks did you run into internally?We had a lot of support and political cover, in the sense that the political appointees — I was not a political appointee — were huge fans. But political appointees under Republicans have also been huge fans of what we were doing. Disagreements are more about what to do and what causes to choose. But the basic idea of being effective with your dollars to push your policy agenda is something that cuts across both sides.In the days leading up to the inauguration, we were expecting to continue the work we were doing. Being more cost-effective was something some of the people who were coming in were huge advocates for. They did make progress under Trump I in pushing USAID in that direction. We saw ourselves as able to help further that goal. Obviously, that's not the way it played out, but there isn't really anything political about being more cost-effective.We'll come back to that, but I do want to talk about the 2.5 years you spent in the Biden administration. USAID is full of people with all kinds of incentives, including some folks who were fully on board and supportive. What kinds of challenges did you have in trying to change the culture to be more focused on evidence and effectiveness?There was a fairly large contingent of people who welcomed us, were eager, understood the space that we were coming from and the things that we wanted, and greeted us with open arms. There's no way we would've accomplished what we accomplished without that. We had a bean counter within the Office of the Chief Economist of moving about $1.7 billion towards programs that were more effective or had strong evaluations. That would've been $0 had there not been some individuals who were already eager and just didn't have the path for doing it.People can see economists as people who are going to come in negative and a bit dismal — the dismal science, so to speak. I got into economics for a positive reason. We tried as often as possible to show that with an economic lens, we can help people achieve their goals better, period. We would say repeatedly to people, "We're not here to actually make the difficult choices: to say whether health, education, or food security is the better use of money. We're here to accept your goal and help you achieve more of it for your dollar spent.” We always send a very disarming message: we're there simply to help people achieve their goals and to illuminate the trade-offs that naturally exist.Within USAID, you have a consensus-type organization. When you have 10 people sitting around a room trying to decide how to spend money towards a common goal, if you don't crystallize the trade-offs between the various ideas being put forward, you end up seeing a consensus built: that everybody gets a piece of the pie. Our way of trying to shift the culture is to take those moments and say, "Wait a second. All 10 might be good ideas relative to doing nothing, but they can't all be good relative to each other. We all share a common goal, so let's be clear about the trade-offs between these different programs. Let's identify the ones that are actually getting you the most bang for your buck."Can you give me an example of what those trade-offs might be in a given sector?Sure. Let's take social protection, what we would call the Humanitarian Nexus development space. It might be working in a refugee area — not dealing with the immediate crisis, but one, two, five, or ten years later — trying to help bring the refugees into a more stable environment and into economic activities. Sometimes, you would see some cash or food provided to households. The programs would all have the common goal of helping to build a sustainable livelihood for households, so that they can be more integrated into the local economy. There might be programs providing water, financial instruments like savings vehicles, and supporting vocational education. It'd be a myriad of things, all on this focused goal of income-generating activity for the households to make them more stable in the long run.Often, those kinds of programs doing 10 different things did not actually lead to an observable impact over five years. But a more focused approach has gone through evaluations: cash transfers. That's a good example where “reducing” doesn't always mean reduce your programs just to one thing, but there is this default option of starting with a base case: “What does a cash transfer generate?"And to clarify for people who don't follow development economics, the cash transfer is just, “What if we gave people money?”Sometimes it is just that. Sometimes it's thinking strategically, “Maybe we should do it as a lump sum so that it goes into investments. Maybe we should do it with a planning exercise to make those investments.” Let's just call it “cash-plus,” or “cash-with-a-little-plus,” then variations of that nature. There's a different model, maybe call it, “cash-plus-plus,” called the graduation model. That has gone through about 30 randomized trials, showing pretty striking impacts on long-run income-generating activity for households. At its core is a cash transfer, usually along with some training about income-generating activity — ideally one that is producing and exporting in some way, even a local export to the capital — and access to some form of savings. In some cases, that's an informal savings group, with a community that comes and saves together. In some cases, it's mobile money that's the core. It's a much simpler program, and it's easier to do it at scale. It has generated considerable, measured, repeatedly positive impacts, but not always. There's a lot more that needs to be learned about how to do it more effectively.[Further reading: Here's another position paper from Karlan's team at USAID on benchmarking against cash transfers.]One of your recurring refrains is, “If we're not sure that these other ideas have an impact, let's benchmark: would a cash-transfer model likely give us more bang for our buck than this panoply of other programs that we're trying to run?”The idea of having a benchmark is a great approach in general. You should always be able to beat X. X might be different in different contexts. In a lot of cases, cash is the right benchmark.Go back to education. What's your benchmark for improving learning outcomes for a primary school? Cash transfer is not the right benchmark. The evidence that cash transfers will single-handedly move the needle on learning outcomes is not that strong. On the other hand, a couple of different programs — one called Teaching at the Right Level, another called structured pedagogy — have proven repeatedly to generate very strong impacts at a fairly modest cost. In education, those should be the benchmark. If you want to innovate, great, innovate. But your goal is to beat those. If you can beat them consistently, you become the benchmark. That's a great process for the long run. It's very much part of our thinking about what the future of foreign aid should look like: to be structured around that benchmark.Let's go back to those roundtables you described, where you're trying to figure out what the intervention should be for a group of refugees in a foreign country. What were the responses when you'd say, “Look, if we're all pulling in the same direction, we have to toss out the three worst ideas”?One of the challenges is the psychology of ethics. There's probably a word for this, but one of the objections we would often get was about the scale of a program for an individual. Someone would argue, "But this won't work unless you do this one extra thing." That extra thing might be providing water to the household, along with a cash transfer for income-generating activity, financial support, and bank accounts. Another objection would be that, "You also have to provide consumption and food up to a certain level."These are things that individually might be good, relative to nothing, or maybe even relative to other water approaches or cash transfers. But if you're focused on whether to satisfy the household's food needs, or provide half of what's needed — if all you're thinking about is the trade-off between full and half — you immediately jump to this idea that, "No, we have to go full. That's what's needed to help this household." But if you go to half, you can help more people. There's an actual trade-off: 10,000 people will receive nothing because you're giving more to the people in your program.The same is true for nutritional supplements. Should you provide 2,000 calories a day, or 1,000 calories a day to more people? It's a very difficult conversation on the psychology of ethics. There's this idea that people in a program are sacrosanct, and you must do everything you can for them. But that ignores all the people who are not being reached at all.I would find myself in conversations where that's exactly the way I would try to put it. I would say, "Okay, wait, we have the 2,000,000 people that are eligible for this program in this context. Our program is only going to reach 250,000. That's the reality. Now, let's talk about how many people we're willing to leave untouched and unhelped whatsoever." That was, at least to me, the right way to frame this question. Do you go very intense for fewer people or broader support for more people?Did that help these roundtables reach consensus, or at least have a better sense of what things are trading off against each other?I definitely saw movement for some. I wouldn't say it was uniform, and these are difficult conversations. But there was a lot of appetite for this recognition that, as big as USAID was, it was still small, relative to the problems being approached. There were a lot of people in any given crisis who were being left unhelped. The minute you're able to help people focus more on those big numbers, as daunting as they are, I would see more openness to looking at the evidence to figure out how to do the most good with the resources we have?” We must recognize these inherent trade-offs, whether we like it or not.Back in 2023, you talked to Dylan Matthews at Vox — it's a great interview — about how it's hard to push people to measure cost-effectiveness, when it means adding another step to a big, complicated bureaucratic process of getting aid out the door. You said,"There are also bandwidth issues. There's a lot of competing demands. Some of these demands relate to important issues on gender environment, fairness in the procurement process. These add steps to the process that need to be adhered to. What you end up with is a lot of overworked people. And then you're saying, ‘Here's one more thing to do.'”Looking back, what do you think of those demands on, say, fairness in the procurement process?Given that we're going to be facing a new environment, there probably are some steps in the process that — hopefully, when things are put back in place in some form — someone can be thinking more carefully about. It's easier to put in a cleaner process that avoids some of these hiccups when you start with a blank slate.Having said that, it's also going to be fewer people to dole out less money. There's definitely a challenge that we're going to be facing as a country, to push out money in an effective way with many fewer people for oversight. I don't think it would be accurate to say we achieved this goal yet, but my goal was to make it so that adding cost-effectiveness was actually a negative-cost addition to the process. [We wanted] to do it in a way that successfully recognized that it wasn't a cookie-cutter solution from up top for every country. But [our goal was that] the work to contextualize in a country actually simplified the process for whoever's putting together the procurement docs and deciding what to put in them. I stand by that belief that if it's done well, we can make this a negative-cost process change.I just want to push a little bit. Would you be supportive of a USAID procurement and contracting process that stripped out a bunch of these requirements about gender, environment, or fairness in contracting? Would that make USAID a more effective institution?Some of those types of things did serve an important purpose for some areas and not others. The tricky thing is, how do you set up a process to decide when to do it, when not? There's definitely cases where you would see an environmental review of something that really had absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It was just a cog in the process, but you have to have a process for deciding the process. I don't know enough about the legislation that was put in place on each of these to say, “Was there a better way of deciding when to do them, when not to do them?” That is not something that I was involved in in a direct way. "Let's think about redoing how we introduce gender in our procurement process" was never put on the table.On gender, there's a fair amount of evidence in different contexts that says the way of dealing with a gender inequity is not to just take the same old program and say, "We're now going to do this for women." You need to understand something more about the local context. If all you do is take programs and say, "Add a gender component," you end up with a lot of false attribution, and you don't end up being effective at the very thing that the person [leading the program] cares to do.In that Vox interview, your host says, "USAID relies heavily on a small number of well-connected contractors to deliver most aid, while other groups are often deterred from even applying by the process's complexity." He goes on to say that the use of rigorous evaluation methods like randomized controlled trials is the exception, not the norm.On Statecraft, we talked to Kyle Newkirk, who ran USAID procurement in Afghanistan in the late 2000s, about the small set of well-connected contractors that took most of the contracts in Afghanistan. Often, there was very little oversight from USAID, either because it was hard to get out to those locations in a war-torn environment, or because the system of accountability wasn't built there. Did you talk to people about lessons learned from USAID operating in Afghanistan?No. I mean, only to the following extent: The lesson learned there, as I understand it, wasn't so much about the choice on what intervention to fund, it was procurement: the local politics and engagement with the governments or lack thereof. And dealing with the challenge of doing work in a context like that, where there's more risk of fraud and issues of that nature.Our emphasis was about the design of programs to say, “What are you actually going to try to fund?” Dealing with whether there's fraud in the execution would fall more under the Inspector General and other units. That's not an area that we engaged in when we would do evaluation.This actually gets to a key difference between impact evaluations and accountability. It's one of the areas where we see a lot of loosey-goosey language in the media reporting and Twitter. My office focused on impact evaluation. What changed in the world because of this intervention, that wouldn't otherwise have changed? By “change in the world,” we are making a causal statement. That's setting up things like randomized controlled trials to find out, “What was the impact of this program?” It does provide some accountability, but it really should be done to look forward, in order to know, “Does this help achieve the goals we have in mind?” If so, let's learn that, and replicate it, scale it, do it again.If you're going to deliver books to schools, medicine to health clinics, or cash to people, and you're concerned about fraud, then you need to audit that process and see, “Did the books get to the schools, the medicine to the people, the cash to the people?” You don't need to ask, "Did the medicine solve the disease?" There's been studies already. There's a reason that medicine was being prescribed. Once it's proven to be an effective drug, you don't run randomized trials for decades to learn what you already know. If it's the prescribed drug, you just prescribe the drug, and do accountability exercises to make sure that the drugs are getting into the right hands and there isn't theft or corruption along the way.I think it's a very intuitive thing. There's a confusion that often takes place in social science, in economic or education interventions. They somehow forget that once we know that a certain program generates a certain positive impact, we no longer need to track continuously to find out what happens. Instead, we just need to do accountability to make sure that the program is being delivered as it was designed, tested, and shown to work.There are all these criticisms — from the waste, fraud, and corruption perspective — of USAID working with a couple of big contractors. USAID works largely through these big development organizations like Chemonics. Would USAID dollars be more effective if it worked through a larger base of contractors?I don't think we know. There's probably a few different operating models that can deliver the same basic intervention. We need to focus on, ”What actually are we doing on the ground? What is it that we want the recipients of the program to receive, hear, or do?” and then think backwards from there: "Who's the right implementer for this?" If there's an implementer who is much more expensive for delivering the same product, let's find someone who's more cost-effective.It's helpful to break cost-effective programming into two things: the intervention itself and what benefits it accrues, and the cost for delivering that. Sometimes the improvement is not about the intervention, it's about the delivery model. Maybe that's what you're saying: “These players were too few, too large, and they had a grab on the market, so that they were able to charge too much money to deliver something that others were equally able to do at lower cost." If that's the case, that says, "We should reform our procurement process,” because the reason you would see that happen is they were really good at complying with requirements that came at USAID from Congress. You had an overworked workforce [within USAID] that had to comply with all these requirements. If you had a bid between two groups, one of which repeatedly delivered on the paperwork to get a good performance evaluation, and a new group that doesn't have that track record, who are you going to choose? That's how we ended up where we are.My understanding of the history is that it comes from a push from Republicans in the ‘80s, from [Senator] Jesse Helms, to outsource USAID efforts to contractors. So this is not a left-leaning thing. I wouldn't say it is right-leaning either. It was just a decision made decades ago. You combine that with the bureaucratic requirements of working with USAID, and you end up with a few firms and nonprofits skilled at dealing with it.It's definitely my impression that at various points in American history, different partisans are calling for insourcing or for outsourcing. But definitely, I think you're right that the NGO cluster around USAID does spring up out of a Republican push in the eighties.We talked to John Kamensky recently, who was on Al Gore's predecessor to DOGE in the ‘90s.I listened to this, yeah.I'm glad to hear it! I'm thinking of it because they also pushed to cut the workforce in the mid-90s and outsource federal functions.Earlier, you mentioned a slide that showed what we've learned in the field of development economics over the past 20 years. Will you narrate that slide for me?Let me do two slides for you. The slide that I was picturing was a count of randomized controlled trials in development that shows a fairly exponential growth. The movement started in the mid-to-late 1990s, but really took off in the 2000s. Even just in the past 10 years, it's seen a considerable increase. There's about 4-5,000 randomized controlled trials evaluating various programs of the kind USAID funds.That doesn't tell you the substance of what was learned. Here's an example of substance, which is cash transfers: probably the most studied intervention out there. We have a meta-analysis that counted 115 studies. That's where you start having a preponderance of evidence to be able to say something concrete. There's some variation: you get different results in different places; targeting and ways of doing it vary. A good systematic analysis can help tease out what we can say, not just about the effect of cash, but also how to do it and what to expect, depending on how it's done. Fifteen years ago, when we saw the first few come out, you just had, "Oh, that's interesting. But it's a couple of studies, how do you form policy around that?” With 115, we can say so much more.What else have we learned about development that USAID operators in the year 2000 would not have been able to act upon?Think about the development process in two steps. One is choosing good interventions; the other is implementing them well. The study of implementation is historically underdone. The challenge that we face — this is an area I was hoping USAID could make inroads on — was, studying a new intervention might be of high reward from an academic perspective. But it's a lot less interesting to an academic to do much more granular work to say, "That was an interesting program that created these groups [of aid recipients]; now let's do some further knock-on research to find out whether those groups should be made of four, six, or ten people.” It's going to have a lower reward for the researcher, but it's incredibly important.It's equivalent to the color of the envelope in direct marketing. You might run tests — if this were old-style direct marketing — as to whether the envelope should be blue or red. You might find that blue works better. Great, but that's not interesting to an academic. But if you run 50 of these, on a myriad of topics about how to implement better, you end up with a collection of knowledge that is moving the needle on how to achieve more impact per dollar.That collection is not just important for policy: it also helps us learn more about the development process and the bottlenecks for implementing good programs. As we're seeing more digital platforms and data being used, [refining implementation] is more possible compared to 20 years ago, where most of the research was at the intervention level: does this intervention work? That's an exciting transition. It's also a path to seeing how foreign aid can help in individual contexts, [as we] work with local governments to integrate evidence into their operations and be more efficient with their own resources.There's an argument I've seen a lot recently: we under-invest in governance relative to other foreign aid goals. If we care about economic growth and humanitarian outcomes, we should spend a lot more on supporting local governance. What do you make of that claim?I agree with it actually, but there's a big difference between recognizing the problem and seeing what the tool is to address it. It's one thing to say, “Politics matters, institutions matter.” There's lots of evidence to support that, including the recent Nobel Prize. It's another beast to say, “This particular intervention will improve institutions and governance.”The challenge is, “What do we do about this? What is working to improve this? What is resilient to the political process?” The minute you get into those kinds of questions, it's the other end of the spectrum from a cash transfer. A cash transfer has a kind of universality: Not to say you're going to get the same impact everywhere, but it's a bit easier to think about the design of a program. You have fewer parameters to decide. When you think about efforts to improve governance, you need bespoke thinking in every single place.As you point out, it's something of a meme to say “institutions matter” and to leave it at that, but the devil is in all of those details.In my younger years — I feel old saying that — I used to do a lot of work on financial inclusion, and financial literacy was always my go-to example. On a household level, it's really easy to show a correlation: people who are more financially literate make better financial decisions and have more wealth, etc. It's much harder to say, “How do you move the needle on financial literacy in a way that actually helps people make better decisions, absorb shocks better, build investment better, save better?” It's easy to show that the correlation is there. It's much harder to say this program, here, will actually move the needle. That same exact problem is much more complicated when thinking about governance and institutions.Let's talk about USAID as it stands today. You left USAID when it became clear to you that a lot of the work you were doing was not of interest to the people now running it. How did the agency end up so disconnected from a political base of support? There's still plenty of people who support USAID and would like it to be reinstated, but it was at least vulnerable enough to be tipped over by DOGE in a matter of weeks. How did that happen?I don't know that I would agree with the premise. I'm not sure that public support of foreign aid actually changed, I'd be curious to see that. I think aid has always been misunderstood. There are public opinion polls that show people thought 25% of the US budget was spent on foreign aid. One said, "What, do you think it should be?" People said 10%. The right answer is about 0.6%. You could say fine, people are bad at statistics, but those numbers are pretty dauntingly off. I don't know that that's changed. I heard numbers like that years ago.I think there was a vulnerability to an effort that doesn't create a visible impact to people's lives in America, the way that Social Security, Medicare, and roads do. Foreign aid just doesn't have that luxury. I think it's always been vulnerable. It has always had some bipartisan support, because of the understanding of the bigger picture and the soft power that's gained from it. And the recognition that we are a nation built on the idea of generosity and being good to others. That was always there, but it required Congress to step in and say, "Let's go spend this money on foreign aid." I don't think that changed. What changed was that you ended up with an administration that just did not share those values.There's this issue in foreign aid: Congress picks its priorities, but those priorities are not a ranked list of what Congress cares about. It's the combination of different interests and pressures in Congress that generates the list of things USAID is going to fund.You could say doing it that way is necessary to build buy-in from a bunch of different political interests for the work of foreign aid. On the other hand, maybe the emergent list from that process is not the things that are most important to fund. And clearly, that congressional buy-in wasn't enough to protect USAID from DOGE or from other political pressures.How should people who care about foreign aid reason about building a version of USAID that's more effective and less vulnerable at the same time?Fair question. Look, I have thoughts, but by no means do I think of myself as the most knowledgeable person to say, here's the answer in the way forward. One reality is, even if Congress did object, they didn't have a mechanism in place to actually object. They can control the power of the purse the next round, but we're probably going to be facing a constitutional crisis over the Impoundment Act, to see if the executive branch can impound money that Congress spent. We'll see how this plays out. Aside from taking that to court, all Congress could do was complain.I would like what comes back to have two things done that will help, but they don't make foreign aid immune. One is to be more evidence-based, because then attacks on being ineffective are less strong. But the reality is, some of the attacks on its “effectiveness,” and the examples used, had nothing to do with poorly-chosen interventions. There was a slipperiness of language, calling something that they don't like “fraud” and “waste” because they didn't like its purpose. That is very different than saying, “We actually agreed on the purpose of something, but then you implemented it in such a bad way that there was fraud and waste.” There were really no examples given of that second part. So I don't know that being more evidence-based will actually protect it, given that that wasn't the way it was really genuinely taken down.The second is some boundaries. There is a core set of activities that have bipartisan support. How do we structure a foreign aid that is just focused on that? We need to find a way to put the things that are more controversial — whether it's the left or right that wants it — in a separate bucket. Let the team that wins the election turn that off and on as they wish, without adulterating the core part that has bipartisan support. That's the key question: can we set up a process that partitions those, so that they don't have that vulnerability? [I wrote about this problem earlier this year.]My counter-example is PEPFAR, which had a broad base of bipartisan support. PEPFAR consistently got long-term reauthorizations from Congress, I think precisely because of the dynamic you're talking about: It was a focused, specific intervention that folks all over the political spectrum could get behind and save lives. But in government programs, if something has a big base of support, you have an incentive to stuff your pet partisan issues in there, for the same reason that “must-pass” bills get stuffed with everybody's little thing. [In 2024, before DOGE, PEPFAR's original Republican co-sponsor came out against a long-term reauthorization, on the grounds that the Biden administration was using the program to promote abortion. Congress reauthorized PEPFAR for only one year, and that reauthorization lapsed in 2025.]You want to carve out the things that are truly bipartisan. But does that idea have a timer attached? What if, on a long enough timeline, everything becomes politicized?There are economic theorems about the nature of a repeated game. You can get many different equilibria in the long run. I'd like to think there's a world in which that is the answer. But we have seen an erosion of other things, like the filibuster regarding judges. Each team makes a little move in some direction, and then you change the equilibrium. We always have that risk. The goal is, how can you establish something where that doesn't happen?It might be that what's happened is helpful, in an unintended way, to build equilibrium in the future that keeps things focused on the bipartisan aspect. Whether it's the left or the right that wants to do something that they know the other side will object to, they hold back and say, "Maybe we shouldn't do that. Because when we do, the whole thing gets blown up."Let's imagine you're back at USAID a couple of years from now, with a broader latitude to organize our foreign aid apparatus around impact and effectiveness. What other things might we want to do — beyond measuring programs and keeping trade-offs in mind — if we really wanted to focus on effectiveness? Would we do fewer interventions and do them at larger scale?I think we would do fewer things simpler and bigger, but I also think we need to recognize that even at our biggest, we were tiny compared to the budget of the local government. If we can do more to use our money to help them be more effective with their money, that's the biggest win to go for. That starts looking a lot like things Mark Green was putting in place [as administrator of USAID] under Trump I, under the Journey to Self-Reliance [a reorganization of USAID to help countries address development challenges themselves].Sometimes that's done in the context of, "Let's do that for five or ten years, and then we can stop giving aid to that country." That was the way the Millennium Challenge Corporation talked about their country selection initially. Eventually, they stopped doing that, because they realized that that was never happening. I think that's okay. As much as we might help make some changes, even if we succeed in helping the poorest country in the world use their resources better, they're still going to be poor. We're still going to be rich. There's still maybe going to be the poorest, because if we do that in the 10 poorest countries and they all move up, maybe the 11th becomes the poorest, and then we can work there. I don't think getting off of aid is necessarily the objective.But if that was clearly the right answer, that's a huge win if we've done that by helping to prove the institutions and governance of that country so that it is rolling out better policies, helping its people better, and collecting their own tax revenue. If we can have an eye on that, then that's a huge win for foreign aid in general.How are we supposed to be measuring the impact of soft power? I think that's a term that's not now much in vogue in DC.There's no one answer to how to measure soft power. It's described as the influence that we gain in the world in terms of geopolitics, everything from treaties and the United Nations to access to markets; trade policy, labor policy. The basic idea of soft power manifests itself in all those different ways.It's a more extreme version of the challenge of measuring the impact of cash transfers. You want to measure the impact of a pill that is intended to deal with disease: you measure the disease, and you have a direct measure. You want to measure the impact of cash: you have to measure a lot of different things, because you don't know how people are going to use the cash. Soft power is even further down the spectrum: you don't know exactly how aid is helping build our partnership with a country's people and leaders. How is that going to manifest itself in the future? That becomes that much harder to do.Having said that, there's academic studies that document everything from attitudes about America to votes at the United Nations that follow aid, and things of that nature. But it's not like there's one core set: that's part of what makes it a challenge.I will put my cards on the table here: I have been skeptical of the idea that USAID is a really valuable tool for American soft power, for maintaining American hegemony, etc. It seems much easier to defend USAID by simply saying that it does excellent humanitarian work, and that's valuable. The national security argument for USAID seems harder to substantiate.I think we agree on this. You have such a wide set of things to look at, it's not hard to imagine a bias from a researcher might lead to selection of outcomes, and of the context. It's not a well-defined enough concept to be able to say, "It worked 20% of the time, and it did not in these, and the net average…" Average over what? Even though there's good case studies that show various paths where it has mattered, there's case studies that show it doesn't.I also get nervous about an entire system that's built around [attempts to measure soft power]. It turns foreign aid into too much of a transactional process, instead of a relationship that is built on the Golden Rule, “There's people in this country that we can actually help.” Sure, there's this hope that it'll help further our national interests. But if they're suffering from drought and famine, and we can provide support and save some lives, or we can do longer term developments and save tomorrow's lives, we ought to do that. That is a good thing for our country to do.Yet the conversation does often come back to this question of soft power. The problem with transactional is you get exactly what you contract on: nothing more, nothing less. There's too many unknowns here, when we're dealing with country-level interactions, and engagements between countries. It needs to be about relationships, and that means supporting even if there isn't a contract that itemizes the exact quid pro quo we are getting for something.I want to talk about what you observed in the administration change and the DOGE-ing of USAID. I think plenty of observers looked at this in the beginning and thought, “It's high time that a lot of these institutions were cleaned up and that someone took a hard look at how we spend money there.”There was not really any looking at any of the impact of anything. That was never in the cards. There was a 90-day review that was supposed to be done, but there were no questions asked, there was no data being collected. There was nothing whatsoever being looked at that had anything to do with, “Was this award actually accomplishing what it set out to accomplish?” There was no process in which they made those kinds of evaluations on what's actually working.You can see this very clearly when you think about what their bean counter was at DOGE: the spending that they cut. It's like me saying, "I'm going to do something beneficial for my household by stopping all expenditures on food." But we were getting something for that. Maybe we could have bought more cheaply, switched grocery stores, made a change there that got us the same food for less money. That would be a positive change. But you can't cut all your food expenditures, call that a saving, and then not have anything to eat. That's just bad math, bad economics.But that's exactly what they were doing. Throughout the entire government, that bean counter never once said, “benefits foregone.” It was always just “lowered spending.” Some of that probably did actually have a net loss, maybe it was $100 million spent on something that only created $10 million of benefits to Americans. That's a $90 million gain. But it was recorded as $100 million. And the point is, they never once looked at what benefits were being generated from the spending. What was being asked, within USAID, had nothing to do with what was actually being accomplished by any of the money that was being spent. It was never even asked.How do you think about risky bets in a place like USAID? It would be nice for USAID to take lots of high-risk, high-reward bets, and to be willing to spend money that will be “wasted” in the pursuit of high-impact interventions. But that approach is hard for government programs, politically, because the misses are much more salient than the successes.This is a very real issue. I saw this the very first time I did any sort of briefing with Congress when I was Chief Economist. The question came at me, "Why doesn't USAID show us more failures?" I remember thinking to myself, "Are you willing to promise that when they show the failure, you won't punish them for the failure — that you'll reward them for documenting and learning from the failure and not doing it again?" That's a very difficult nut to crack.There's an important distinction to make. You can have a portfolio of evidence generation, some things work and some don't, that can collectively contribute towards knowledge and scaling of effective programs. USAID actually had something like this called Development Innovation Ventures (DIV), and was in an earmark from Congress. It was so good that they raised money from the effective altruist community to further augment their pot of money. This was strong because a lot of it was not evaluating USAID interventions. It was just funding a portfolio of evidence generation about what works, implemented by other parties. The failures aren't as devastating, because you're showing a failure of some other party: it wasn't USAID money paying for an intervention. That was a strong model for how USAID can take on some risks and do some evidence generation that is immune to the issue you just described.If you're going to do evaluations of USAID money, the issue is very real. My overly simplistic view is that a lot of what USAID does should not be getting a highly rigorous impact evaluation. USAID should be rolling out, simple and at scale, things that have already been shown elsewhere. Let the innovation take place pre-USAID, funded elsewhere, maybe by DIV. Let smaller and more nimble nonprofits be the innovators and the documenters of what works. Then, USAID can adopt the things that are more effective and be more immune to this issue.So yeah, there is a world that is not first-best where USAID does the things that have strong evidence already. When it comes to actual innovation, where we do need to take risks that things won't work, let that be done in a way that may be supported by USAID, but partitioned away.I'm looking at a chart of USAID program funding in Fiscal Year 2022: the three big buckets are humanitarian, health, and governance, all on the order of $10–12 billion. Way down at the bottom, there's $500 million for “economic growth.” What's in that bucket that USAID funds, and should that piece of the pie chart be larger?I do think that should be larger, but it depends on how you define it. I don't say that just because I'm an economist. It goes back to the comment earlier about things that we can do to help improve local governance, and how they're using their resources. The kinds of things that might be funded would be efforts to work with local government to improve their ability to collect taxes. Or to set up efficient regulations for the banking industry, so it can grow and provide access to credit and savings. These are things that can help move the needle on macroeconomic outcomes. With that, you have more resources. That helps health and education, you have these downstream impacts. As you pointed out, the earmark on that was tiny. It did not have quite the same heartstring tug. But the logical link is huge and strong: if you strengthen the local government's financial stability, the benefits very much accrue to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Social Protection, etc.Fighting your way out of poverty through growth is unambiguously good. You can look at many countries around the world that have grown economically, and through that, reduced poverty. But it's one thing to say that growth will alleviate poverty. It's another to say, "Here's aid money that will trigger growth." If we knew how to do that, we would've done it long ago, in a snap.Last question. Let's say it's a clean slate at USAID in a couple years, and you have wide latitude to do things your way. I want the Dean Karlan vision for the future of USAID.It needs to have, at the high level, a recognition that the Golden Rule is an important principle that guides our thinking on foreign aid and that we want to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Being generous as a people is something that we pride ourselves in, our nation represents us as people, so we shouldn't be in any way shy to use foreign aid to further that aspiration of being a generous nation.The actual way of delivering aid, I would say, three things. Simpler. Let's focus on the evidence of what works, but recognize the boundaries of that evidence and how to contextualize it. There is a strong need to understand what it means to be simpler, and how to identify what that means in specific countries and contexts.The second is about leveraging local government, and working more to recognize that, as big as we may be, we're still going to be tiny relative to local government. If we can do more to improve how local government is using its resources, we've won.The third is about finding common ground. There's a lot. That's one of the reasons why I've started working on a consortium with Republicans and Democrats. The things I care about are generally non-partisan. The goal is to take the aspirations that foreign aid has — about improving health, education, economic outcomes, food security, agricultural productivity, jobs, trade, whatever the case is — and how do we use the evidence that's out there to move the needle as much as we can towards those goals? A lot of topics have common ground. How do we set up a foreign aid system that stays true to the common ground? I'd like to think it's not that hard. That's what I think would be great to see happen. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Does this sound familiar? You've been told to just keep grinding it out in your current job until the “right” opportunity magically appears, but all that's gotten you is more stress, second-guessing, and the nagging feeling you're wasting your potential. It sucks watching your energy drain away while your values get sidelined and you wonder if you'll ever feel truly fulfilled at work. You deserve a career that's actually aligned with who you are and the impact you want to make. Let's talk about how to break out of that cycle and make values-driven pivots with confidence. In this episode, you will be able to: Discover how navigating career transitions with purpose can unlock clarity and confidence for your next meaningful move. Learn to build a mission-driven organizational culture that inspires teams and drives lasting impact. Uncover effective strategies for overcoming burnout in leadership to sustain your passion and performance. Explore the powerful connection between personal fulfillment and professional success to elevate your career satisfaction. Embrace the role of culture and inclusion in innovative leadership to foster creativity and breakthrough solutions. My special guest is Dr. Esther Zeledón Dr. Esther Zeledón is a globally recognized life and leadership coach, bestselling author, and former U.S. diplomat. With a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley and decades of impact in international development, she's worked with governments, NGOs, and global corporations alike. Featured on Univision, Ticker News, Medium, and top 1–5% podcasts, Dr. Z empowers leaders to unlock their limitless potential through a powerful blend of neuroscience, strategy, and soulful insight. The key moments in this episode are:00:00:00 - Introduction to Trauma-Informed Leadership and Global Impact 00:04:19 - Reflections on Venezuelan Elections and the Importance of Collective Action 00:09:32 - U.S. Political Unity and Leadership Transition Insights 00:13:30 - Challenges and Opportunities in Diverse Political Coalitions 00:03:46 - Introducing Dr. Esther Zeledón: Strategist, Scientist, and Global Leadership Coach 00:14:43 - Collective Action and Individual Clarity for Social Change 00:18:20 - Empowering Communities Through Shared Vision and Ownership 00:21:33 - Challenging Scarcity Mentality in Immigration Narratives 00:24:50 - The Impact of Scarcity vs. Abundance Mindsets on Society 00:26:57 - Early Social Conditioning Shapes Scarcity or Abundance Mindsets 00:27:55 - Overcoming Scarcity Mindset and Embracing Abundance 00:29:23 - Immigration Realities and the Importance of Inner Work 00:32:43 - Personal Immigration Story and Access to Healthcare 00:35:46 - Navigating Systems, Networks, and Immigrant Challenges 00:38:01 - Bilingualism, Discrimination, and Overcoming Educational Barriers 00:40:36 - Overcoming Bias and Authenticity in Leadership 00:42:08 - Challenging Leadership Stereotypes and the Need for DEI Awareness 00:44:11 - Writing "Creating Your Limitless Life" to Inspire and Empower 00:48:02 - Navigating Scarcity Mindset and Building Empathy for Change 00:50:56 - Resources for Personal Growth and Creating a Limitless Life Send this episode to five people who care about making the world better. Tap 5 stars, and leave a quick review for the podcast. Join the Master the Career Pivot course at LoriAdamsBrown.com/CareerPivot. (Use the code: Different to get 10% off.) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this conversation, KnowledgeWorkx founder Marco Blankenburgh interviews Roberta Saffels—Brazilian-American psychologist, 25-year expat, and positive-leadership consultant based in Doha, Qatar. Roberta explains how Positive Psychology shifts focus from “fixing what's wrong” to enabling people and organisations to flourish—from zero to plus ten. She describes Positive Leadership's practice of spotlighting strengths first, then “calibrating” over-used talents rather than patching weaknesses.The dialogue explores why wellbeing at work is tightly linked to the quality of a leader's relationships, and how Inter-Cultural Intelligence (ICI) provides the missing language for navigating honour-shame dynamics, collective agency, and communication styles in the Gulf region. Marco and Roberta share real-world stories—from Qatari start-ups to global NGOs—showing how an appreciative, culturally agile approach unlocks engagement and performance.Roberta also previews her upcoming Positive Leadership Academy, a 12-week formation journey blending cultural intelligence, emotional intelligence, and an AI “nudge coach” to embed new habits.Listen in to discover practical ways to shift your leadership from problem-solving to possibility-finding—and help your team thrive across cultures.In this podcast you will learn:How Positive Psychology moves leaders beyond “removing distress” to creating flourishing, high-engagement cultures.Why spotlighting existing strengths shifts the whole organisation's performance more effectively than fixing weaknesses.How Inter-Cultural Intelligence helps leaders navigate honour-shame dynamics, collective agency, and communication styles in the Gulf region.Practical ways to balance credibility and collaboration—priming conversations so teams contribute without leaders losing face.The vision behind the new 12-week Positive Leadership Academy and how its AI “nudge coach” embeds lasting behaviour change.Learn more about Roberta's work here: https://robertasaffels.com/Additional suggested reading:How to increase your effectiveness as a global leader Introducing the Three Colors of Worldview Introducing the 12 Dimensions of Culture -- Looking for a book to take your cultural agility to the next step, check out the Ultimate Intercultural Question Book brought to you by KnowledgeWorkx.com

**

In this episode of The Wisdom Tradition podcast, I dive into a curated selection of recent podcast, interview, and news clips, using them as an excuse to further examine the ideas and themes of my recent book, "The Coming World Nation." Topics include the deep state, technocracy, global governance, and the rapid rise of AI.Table of Contents:00:00 – Introduction02:37 – Clip 1: Steve Bannon on the Deep State & Administrative State16:03 – Clip 2: Elon Musk on Government Efficiency and the NGO Ecosystem27:15 – Clip 3: Mike Benz & Eric Weinstein on NGOs, Media, and Regime Change39:24 – Clip 4: Richard Dolan on Hidden Government Finances49:48 – Clip 5: Steven Greer on Black Projects and Missing Trillions54:24 – Clip 6: Alex Jones on the Collective Shadow and Global Power Structures1:09:58 – Clip 7: RFK Jr. on the Medical System and Chronic Disease1:17:17 – Clip 8: Technocracy, AI, and the Future (Eric Schmidt, Mark Andreessen, others)1:23:57 – Conclusion & Final ThoughtsSend us a text

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The EU is trying to make a deal with the US, lets see if the EU folds and the US and the EU are on an even playing field. Trump is now accelerating AI technology in the US, soon we will be the leader and it will be sold across the globe. Trump is now touring the Fed because they stopped his administration, soon. The [DS] criminal syndicate is being shutdown, USAID was shutdown the money stopped flowing and now the networks are shutting down shows, coincidence. The fake news does not want to report on the Russian collusion news, but this will not work. The D's do not want all the Epstein files released only the manipulated files to trap Trump. Kash and team are dismantling the pedo networks, the FBI and DOJ have created the strike force to go after the treasonous people.   Economy https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1948052112895856830 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1948148137492664763   Radical Left ideology at the expense of accuracy President Trump to Visit Federal Reserve Thursday  Trump will visit the Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, D.C. Thursday afternoon. The visit comes as Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is under pressure by the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans on two fronts: His refusal to lower interest rates and the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed's headquarters. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1948206791449346162 https://twitter.com/JamesBlairUSA/status/1948450871559553039   Political/Rights https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1948406723812721113 Recent speculation about cancellation, particularly fueled by posts on X in July 2025, has been debunked. These rumors often stem from misinterpretations of the show's regular breaks, such as the summer hiatus or spring break, during which reruns are aired. For instance, a post on X claimed Joy Behar announced the show was canceled, citing a statement about “one more show,” but this referred to the season finale before the hiatus, not a permanent end. Think about why the other shows were cancelled, if they shows were losing millions of dollars, where were the networks getting the money, we call it money laundering, USAID shutdown, NGOs not receiving money, DS propaganda outlets need to shutdown.    campus. Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming. It's a great honor to have been involved, and I want to thank and congratulate Secretary Linda McMahon, and all those who worked with us on this important deal. I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right. I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before! https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/1948156194238906879 https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1948135454236127438 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1948110639811166317     https://twitter.com/FBIDDBongino/status/1948073725229691360   come. Those who attack America's police officers can run bu...

We welcome J.J. Carrell, former Senior Leader for the Border Patrol, to discuss how the U.S. government has been funding and encouraging child sex trafficking, alongside major NGOs. Father finishes with Timely Thoughts. Show Notes JJ Carrell Testifies Before Congress (YouTube) J.J. Carrell TREASON: The Biden Administration's Strategic and Malicious Destruction of America's Sovereignty Invaded: The Intentional Destruction of the American Immigration System What's missing in the fight against porn? Author thinks he has the answer  SHOCKING: Biden admin ‘hotline' for migrant children complaining about sponsors left 65,000 calls unanswered iCatholic Mobile The Station of the Cross Merchandise - Use Coupon Code 14STATIONS for 10% off | Catholic to the Max Read Fr. McTeigue's Written Works! "Let's Take A Closer Look" with Fr. Robert McTeigue, S.J. | Full Series Playlist Listen to Fr. McTeigue's Preaching! | Herald of the Gospel Sermons Podcast on Spotify Visit Fr. McTeigue's Website | Herald of the Gospel Questions? Comments? Feedback? Ask Father!

Japan's elections on Sunday saw the country's ruling Liberal Democratic Party lose its longstanding majority, while a far-right nationalist “Japanese First” party gained ground. Also, vaccine rates are stalling, and even declining, around the globe. And, China begins construction on what's set to be the world's largest hydroelectric dam, raising concerns from its neighbors and NGOs. Plus, Mexican singer-songwriter Natalia Lafourcade tours the US and talks about navigating identity and belonging through her music.Listen to today's Music Heard on Air. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Senator Adam Schiff, a longtime Trump antagonist, has been criminally referred to the DOJ for allegedly falsifying residency records to secure favorable mortgage terms. Anthony Bernal, longtime top aide to Jill Biden, pleads the Fifth in a House Oversight probe into the potential Biden cognitive decline cover-up. A fiery House hearing reveals billions in taxpayer dollars flowed to NGOs accused of aiding illegal immigration and fueling a trafficking pipeline under President Biden's border policies.Visit RiverbendRanch.com | Use code Megyn for $20 off your first orderVisit CHEFIQ.com Use code MK for 15% off