Podcasts about usaid

Freedom Friday rolls on with listeners' talkbacks about who they would have on their Mt. Rushmore! Jon is joined by MN Rep. Max Rymer and Grace Keating where they discuss Dem opposition to Trump's D.C. decision and conspiracies around USAID. Grace and Jon share their Mr. Rushmore lists, and the group complies the Mt. Rushmore of their Mt. Rushmore lists.

From Port Fees to Boycotts — Trade's “Look What You Made Me Do” Moment Host: Cindy Allen Published: August 15, 2025 Length: ~25 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center This week, Cindy Allen — the Taylor Swift of Trade — takes inspiration from Taylor's hit Look What You Made Me Do to unpack the global ripple effects of new U.S. trade policies. From Canadian boycotts to rerouted shipping lanes, canceled farm contracts, and the e-commerce shake-up, Cindy explains how global players are reshaping trade routes and relationships to avoid U.S. tariffs. The result? A landscape where “look what you made me do” is more than a lyric — it's the world's response to American trade policy. What You'll Learn in This Episode: Port Fees & Rerouting – Why OOCL and other carriers are bypassing U.S. ports Canada's Workarounds – New trade agreements that sidestep the U.S., and the impact on U.S. brands Tourism Declines – 33% drop from Canadian visitors, $29B hit to the economy India's 50% Tariffs – How boycotts and shifting consumer sentiment are changing market access Farm Fallout – Canceled China soybean contracts, reduced crop insurance, and frozen subsidies Automotive Industry Pressure – Sliding profits tied to 232 and reciprocal tariffs Swiss Surprise – 39% reciprocal tariff and the pharmaceutical implications E-Commerce Under Pressure – End of de minimis and CBP's visibility challenges Key Takeaways: Trade partners are actively bypassing the U.S. through alternative agreements and routes. U.S. brands face boycotts and sales drops in Canada and India. Agricultural exports are hit hard by contract cancellations and market shifts. The end of de minimis changes how CBP sees — or doesn't see — package-level data. Some companies are adopting a “wait and see” approach rather than immediate supply chain overhauls. About the Host – Cindy Allen Known as the “Taylor Swift of Trade,” Cindy Allen brings clarity, edge, and insight to the week's most pressing trade developments. With decades of experience, she helps industry professionals make sense of the chaos — with a little pop culture flair.   Follow Cindy on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cindy-allen-a3188210/

I ugens Radio Information tegner vi et portræt af Steve Witkoff, der blev venner med Trump over en ostesandwich og nu skal skabe fred i verden. Vi taler også om afviklingen af den internationale udviklingsbistand, og så runder vi en på alle måder idiotisk debat om bukser og gener --- Når Donald Trump og Vladimir Putin mødes i Alaska fredag, skyldes det i høj grad forarbejdet fra en af Trumps nærmeste og ældste venner. Nemlig USA's særlige udsending Steve Witkoff, der allerede har holdt flere møder med den russiske præsident  – senest i sidste uge. Witkoff har Trumps tillid og er blevet en nøgleperson i præsidentens bestræbelser på at skabe fred mellem Rusland og Ukraine. Men hvem er denne 68-årige tidligere ejendomsmogul, som i sin tid mødte Trump over en osteskinkesandwich i New York? Og er han overhovedet klædt på til jobbet? Ida Nyegård Espersen tegner et portræt. I Sudan er der udbrudt kolera, en fødevarekrise truer i Nigeria, Gaza er sin egen historie, og både Yemen og Congo er på randen af kollaps. De humanitære kriser er uhyggeligt nærværende. Men hjælpen har aldrig været længere væk. Bunden er nemlig gået ud af den internationale udviklingsbistand – senest med Trumps beslutning om helt at nedlægge det store amerikanske hjælpeprogram USAID. Nu er det America First. Men er det overhovedet i USA's egen interesse at afvikle udviklingsbistanden? Og hvad betyder det for verdens fattigste? Mathias Sindberg kigger forbi. »Sydney Sweeney has great jeans«, hedder det i en af de mest omdiskuterede reklamer i nyere tid. 'Jeans' med j, altså bukser. Eller var det 'genes', med g, altså gener? Det er spørgsmålet, som har optaget millioner af mennesker de seneste uger. For var budskabet i tøjreklamen med den amerikanske skuespiller i virkeligheden racistisk? Eller var kritikken af reklamen bare typisk woke? Venstrefløj mod højrefløj, de røde mod de blå, vi har hørt historien før – eller har vi? Hør Matthias Dresler-Bredsdorff udrulle, hvad sagen egentlig handler om, og hvad den kan lære os om det ofte usynlige propagandaarbejde, der former vores debatter – og vores forargelse. Velkommen til.

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.

We start off this episode talking about how dial up internet is finally going offline in September of this year! followed by a discussion about how abandoned malls all over the world may become vertical gardens in the very near future. Trump may have just brokered a peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia, but not for the moral reasons you may think. We then talk about how the Democrats abandoning their posts in Texas has now directly effected aid being delivered to flood victims! There is a flesh eating bacteria making its way all over the southern coastal states, and we talk about ways to stay safe from it. Appeals court has determined Trumps $2 billion budget cuts to USAID is approved, and he has also ordered an audit to be done on eight Smithsonian museums to ensure that the history is "accurate" his ideals of what makes America look great in preparations for the 250th anniversary. We briefly talk about the explosion at the US steel manufacturing facility, then transition to international news. Europe has wildfires all over the continent! Zelinsky and European leaders want to have a call with Trump right before he has his big meeting with Putin in Alaska. We then talk about a whistle blower from Gaza, and how the media is spinning completely untrue stories about him immediately after he spoke about war crimes taking place there. We finish the conversation with a discussion about two Chinese coast guard ships that crashed into each other while trying to out maneuver a Phillipino merchant ship!To join in the conversation next week, come to patreon.com/CajunKnightBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/cult-of-conspiracy--5700337/support.

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

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

This Day in Legal History: Social Security ActOn August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, establishing the foundation of the modern American welfare state. The legislation was a centerpiece of Roosevelt's New Deal and aimed to address the widespread economic insecurity caused by the Great Depression. For the first time, the federal government created a structured system of unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, funded by payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. The law also introduced Aid to Dependent Children, a program designed to support families headed by single mothers, later expanded into Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).The Act marked a major shift in federal involvement in individual economic welfare and signaled a broader acceptance of the idea that the government bears some responsibility for the financial well-being of its citizens. Though limited in scope at first—agricultural and domestic workers, for example, were excluded—the framework it established would evolve through amendments and court challenges over the following decades.The Social Security Act was challenged on constitutional grounds shortly after its passage, but the Supreme Court upheld its key provisions in Helvering v. Davis (1937), affirming Congress's power to spend for the general welfare. Over time, the Social Security program expanded to include disability insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. While the structure and funding of these programs remain a subject of political debate, the 1935 Act remains one of the most enduring and significant pieces of social legislation in U.S. history.A Texas state court has appointed a receiver to take control of Alex Jones' company, Free Speech Systems LLC, the parent of his Infowars show, in an effort to collect on $1.3 billion in defamation judgments related to his false claims about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted the request from families of victims in the Connecticut case, authorizing receiver Gregory S. Milligan to manage and potentially liquidate the company's assets. Another hearing is scheduled for September 16 to determine whether the Texas-based judgments should also be placed under receivership.Jones, who has been in personal bankruptcy since 2022, has been shielded from immediate collection on many of these judgments, but his company's Chapter 11 case was dismissed in 2024, giving a separate bankruptcy trustee limited control over its assets. The receiver now has authority, subject to that trustee's approval, to pursue the sale of Infowars' media assets, access financial records, and initiate legal actions to recover property.Attorneys for the Sandy Hook families hailed the order as a major step toward accountability. Meanwhile, Jones' legal team plans to appeal, arguing the court was misled about prior bankruptcy rulings. Jones is also seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Connecticut judgment, with a filing deadline set for September 5.Alex Jones' Infowars Assets to Be Taken Over by Receiver (1)A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down Trump administration rules that allowed employers to deny birth control coverage based on religious or moral objections. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that the 2018 exemptions were not justified and found a disconnect between the sweeping scope of the rules and the limited number of employers likely to need them. The ruling came in a case brought by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the rules on procedural grounds in 2020 but did not evaluate their substance.The Affordable Care Act mandates contraception coverage in employer health plans, with narrow exemptions for religious organizations. The Trump administration expanded this to a broader class of employers, arguing that even applying for exemptions could burden religious practice. Judge Beetlestone disagreed, saying the administration failed to show a rational link between the perceived issue and its response.The Biden administration had proposed reversing the Trump-era policy in 2023, but that effort stalled before Biden left office. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic group involved in defending the rules, plans to appeal the new decision. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling.US judge blocks Trump religious exemption to birth control coverage | ReutersPresident Trump revoked a 2021 executive order issued by then-President Joe Biden that aimed to promote competition across the U.S. economy. Biden's order targeted anti-competitive practices in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and labor, and was a key element of his economic agenda. It included efforts to reduce consumer costs by curbing monopolistic behavior and increasing oversight of mergers.Trump's administration criticized the Biden-era approach as overly restrictive and burdensome. The Justice Department, under Trump, endorsed the revocation, stating it would pursue an “America First Antitrust” strategy focused on market freedom and less regulatory interference. Officials also announced plans to streamline the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process and reinstate targeted consent decrees to address specific anti-competitive behavior.Critics argue the revocation will weaken protections for consumers and small businesses. A June 2025 report by advocacy groups estimated that dismantling consumer protection policies, including those from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has cost Americans at least $18 billion through higher fees and lost compensation. Trump has also taken steps to drastically reduce the CFPB's workforce.Former Biden competition policy director Hannah Garden-Monheit condemned the move, claiming it contradicts Trump's promise to support everyday Americans and instead benefits large corporations.Trump revokes Biden-era order on competition, White House says | ReutersA federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit filed by video-sharing platform Rumble, which had accused major advertisers—Diageo, WPP, and the World Federation of Advertisers—of conspiring to boycott the platform by withholding ad spending. U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that the Northern District of Texas was not the appropriate venue for the case, as the defendants are based in the UK and Belgium. Her decision did not address the substance of Rumble's antitrust claims.Rumble's lawsuit alleged that the advertisers participated in a “brand-safety” initiative through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which it claims was used to pressure platforms like Rumble—known for minimal content moderation—into compliance or risk being excluded from ad budgets. The defendants countered that business decisions not to advertise on Rumble were based on brand protection and had nothing to do with collusion or a boycott.Judge Boyle noted it remains an "open question" whether the Texas court is the right venue for a similar lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's social media platform X, which is also pending. The advertisers argued Rumble's legal action was a misuse of antitrust laws intended to force companies to do business with it.US judge tosses Rumble lawsuit claiming advertising boycott | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing him to halt billions in foreign aid payments that had been previously approved by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction issued by a lower court that had ordered the administration to resume nearly $2 billion in aid. The aid freeze was initiated on January 20, 2025—Trump's first day of his second term—through an executive order and followed by significant staffing and structural changes to USAID, the government's main foreign aid agency.The lawsuit challenging the freeze was brought by two nonprofit organizations that depend on federal funding: the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network. The appeals court, however, ruled that the groups lacked legal standing to challenge the freeze and that only the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, had authority to do so.Judge Karen Henderson, writing for the majority, explicitly stated the court was not deciding whether Trump's actions violated the Constitution's separation of powers or Congress's control over federal spending. In a sharp dissent, Judge Florence Pan argued the decision undermined the Constitution's checks and balances and enabled unlawful executive overreach.A White House spokesperson praised the ruling, framing it as a victory against "radical left" interference and a step toward aligning foreign aid spending with Trump's "America First" agenda.US appeals court lets Trump cut billions in foreign aid | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao ruled through violence, fear, and ideology. But in recent decades a new breed of media-savvy strongmen has been redesigning authoritarian rule for a more sophisticated, globally connected world. In place of overt, mass repression, rulers such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán control their citizens by distorting information and simulating democratic procedures. Like spin doctors in democracies, they spin the news to engineer support. Uncovering this new brand of authoritarianism, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explain the rise of such “spin dictators,” describing how they emerge and operate, the new threats they pose, and how democracies should respond. Spin Dictators traces how leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Peru's Alberto Fujimori pioneered less violent, more covert, and more effective methods of monopolizing power. They cultivated an image of competence, concealed censorship, and used democratic institutions to undermine democracy, all while increasing international engagement for financial and reputational benefits. The book reveals why most of today's authoritarians are spin dictators—and how they differ from the remaining “fear dictators” such as Kim Jong-un and Bashar al-Assad. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century (Princeton UP, 2022) is aimed at a general audience, synthesizing a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative research by the authors and many other scholars. The book is highly readable, with a great mix of anecdotes and examples along with plain-English explanations of academic research findings. However, it also provides an excellent overview of contemporary global authoritarianism for academics. Almost every claim in the book has an endnote reference to the original research for those who want to follow up. The endnotes mean that despite its moderately intimidating 340-page heft, the main text is a very approachable 219 pages. Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on Russian politics and economics as well as comparative political economy, including in particular the analysis of democratization, the politics of authoritarian states, political decentralization, and corruption. In 2021-22, he was a visiting fellow at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and he was recently named a 2022 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. A graduate of Oxford University (B.A. Hons.) and Harvard University (Ph.D. 1995), he has published five books and numerous articles in leading political science and economics journals including The American Political Science Review and The American Economic Review, as well as in public affairs journals such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. He has also served as a consultant for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and USAID. In Russia, he has been a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Higher School of Economics and a member of the Jury of the National Prize in Applied Economics Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco, where he leads a new Master's program in Applied Economics focused on the digital economy. His research focuses on the political economy and governance of China. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

Hello to all of our loyal listeners at Heritage Explains. We are on break for the month of August and will be coming back with new episodes in September. But in the meantime, we're rounding up some of our favorite shows from earlier this year. One of the key moments in the early Trump Administration were the cuts to USAID.  For the first time, many Americans got an up-close-and-personal look at the way that the sausage gets made in Washington. What most people assumed was an innocuous aid organization was actually involved in much more sinister activities. Check out this conversation with David Ditch, who breaks down why this moment mattered so much. Follow David Ditch on X: https://x.com/davidaditchLearn more about The Heritage Foundation: ⁠www.heritage.org⁠—Have thoughts? Let us know at ⁠heritageexplains@heritage.org

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 3rd 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__unAIn this episode of the podcast series, Lee and Nora delve into the intricate dynamics of the development sector within the coffee industry. They discuss the significant impact of USAID funding cuts, the disparities in compensation between the nonprofit and corporate sectors, and how these challenges affect coffee farmers. The conversation also explores the broader implications of global trade, capitalism, and the resilience of farmers. Stay tuned for valuable insights on whether the development sector can survive in the volatile coffee industry of 2025.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

Elon Musk left Washington and his “Department of Government Efficiency” initiative with a highly controversial and, many would say, disappointing track record. For followers of President Donald Trump and the idea of slashing what he’s claimed is out-of-control government spending, Musk’s self-reported $199 billion in savings (which cannot be independently confirmed) is a far cry from the $2 trillion the Tesla CEO promised. As far as Musk’s detractors are concerned, his cuts—often executed in haphazard fashion as his twenty-something minions unceremoniously fired long-serving federal employees—have not only disrupted how the government operates on a fundamental level, but also triggered dramatic downstream consequences, many irreversible, both domestically and across the globe. In this episode of Elon, Inc., Max Chafkin sits down with Wired magazine senior writer Makena Kelly to discuss the legacy Musk leaves behind in Washington. How do you make sense of the hundreds of thousands or people estimated to have already died in Africa and elsewhere because of Musk’s gleeful dismantling of USAID? Or how the supposed savings of “DOGE” compare to the $3.1 trillion recently tacked on to America’s $37 trillion national debt by Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill”? And what are the consequences for the country now that Musk has upended the lives and morale of those federal workers who remain, many of whom still work under the shadow of more firings? For Kelly, Musk’s lasting legacy will be one of cultural shakeup: Many of the people he and Trump have placed in positions of power say they think the federal government should be run more like a tech startup than a traditional bureaucracy. And even though he’s physically absent, they still don’t want to fall out of favor with the world’s richest man. Finally, Kelly outlines what she says we can expect from “DOGE 2.0.” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sam Harris speaks with Anne Applebaum about the erosion of democracy at home and abroad. They discuss the Sudanese civil war and the outside forces involved, America's retreat from global leadership, the impacts of USAID cuts, gerrymandering, the integrity of U.S. elections, the capitulation of Republican representatives to Trump, tariffs, what a post-Trump world could look like, JD Vance as a potential successor to the MAGA movement, Israel's actions in Gaza, and other topics. If the Making Sense podcast logo in your player is BLACK, you can SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes at samharris.org/subscribe.

After more than 60 years of global humanitarian work, the U.S. Agency for International Development has been quietly dismantled, leaving a massive void in aid efforts around the world. This week, we explore what led to the closure, the political forces behind it and why experts warn the ripple effects both at home and abroad could be devastating. Learn More: https://viewpointsradio.org/from-soft-power-to-silence-the-collapse-of-usaid Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Esta semana, na Câmara dos Deputados, Mike Benz – ex-funcionário do Departamento de Estado dos EUA – soltou uma bomba: o governo americano teria interferido diretamente nas eleições brasileiras. Segundo Benz, agências como a USAID, CIA e até a Casa Branca teriam financiado ONGs, veículos de checagem e influenciadores para controlar o ambiente informacional no Brasil. Isso faz parte de um método, que quem segue o Café Brasil já conhece desde 2021... Link para a Jornada: https://www.cafebrasilpremium.com.br/app/jornadas/psicose-em-massa Link para a loja: https://cafebrasilloja.com Sabe o que é estranho?Você escolhe o banco, o plano de saúde, a internet… mas nunca escolheu de onde vem a energia que usa todo dia.Sempre achou normal não ter escolha, não é? A conta de luz chega, a gente paga — e pronto. Não sabe de onde vem a energia, não entende a tarifa, só aceita. Como se fosse lei da natureza.Mas não é.Com a abertura do Mercado Livre de Energia, você agora pode escolher de quem comprar sua energia. Pode negociar preço, escolher fontes 100% renováveis, e economizar 15% (até 30% no caso de empresas!) — sem trocar nada em casa, sem investir um centavo. Sabe como? Com a iGreen Energy, que pega você pela mão e cuida de tudo: parte técnica, burocracia, integração. Você continua recebendo energia normalmente, com duas faturas: uma da distribuidora, outra da iGreen — só que essa vem com economia garantida. Aqui pra mim, em São Paulo, a redução é de no mínimo 10% garantida em contrato! É simples, digital, e faz diferença pro seu bolso… e pro planeta.E você ainda faz parte de um clube de descontos em mais de 60 mil lojas pelo Brasil.Sabe o que isso significa?Que agora a decisão é sua.Acesse conexaogreen.comE escolha a energia que faz sentido. ----------------------------------------------- .... MUNDO CAFÉ BRASIL: https://mundocafebrasil.com Curso Merdades e Ventiras - Como se proteger da mídia que faz sua cabeça? https://merdadeseventiras.com.br/curso/ Conheça o Podcast Café com Leite: https://portalcafebrasil.com.br/todos/cafe-com-leite/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lucianopires/ Para conhecer minhas palestras: https://lucianopires.com.br Vem dar uma olhada na nossa loja: https://lucianopires.com.br/loja Edição e animação: Daniel Pires ....................................................................................................................................................................

Political Fix is on a break this week. In its absence, we're taking the opportunity to introduce you to its sister podcast, Swamp Notes, the weekly US politics podcast from the Financial Times. Six months after the Trump administration gutted the US Agency for International Development, experts are tracking the impact of its absence. The FT's David Pilling and the Brookings Institution's George Ingram describe the surprising ways countries are adapting to a world with less resources for the poor, sick and starving.Mentioned in this podcast:Email Marc with your questions (Marc.Filippino@FT.com)What the closure of USAID is really costing the worldUSAID cuts threaten 14mn extra deaths by 2030, warns studyThe shifting future of foreign aidSign up for the FT's Swamp Notes newsletter hereListen to Swamp Notes on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts or wherever you get your podcasts.Swamp Notes is produced by Henry Larson. Samantha Giovinco mixed this week's episode. The FT's acting co-head of audio is Topher Forhecz. Special thanks to Pierre Nicholson. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Esta semana, na Câmara dos Deputados, Mike Benz – ex-funcionário do Departamento de Estado dos EUA – soltou uma bomba: o governo americano teria interferido diretamente nas eleições brasileiras. Segundo Benz, agências como a USAID, CIA e até a Casa Branca teriam financiado ONGs, veículos de checagem e influenciadores para controlar o ambiente informacional no Brasil. Isso faz parte de um método, que quem segue o Café Brasil já conhece desde 2021... Link para a Jornada: https://www.cafebrasilpremium.com.br/app/jornadas/psicose-em-massa Link para a loja: https://cafebrasilloja.com Sabe o que é estranho?Você escolhe o banco, o plano de saúde, a internet… mas nunca escolheu de onde vem a energia que usa todo dia.Sempre achou normal não ter escolha, não é? A conta de luz chega, a gente paga — e pronto. Não sabe de onde vem a energia, não entende a tarifa, só aceita. Como se fosse lei da natureza.Mas não é.Com a abertura do Mercado Livre de Energia, você agora pode escolher de quem comprar sua energia. Pode negociar preço, escolher fontes 100% renováveis, e economizar 15% (até 30% no caso de empresas!) — sem trocar nada em casa, sem investir um centavo. Sabe como? Com a iGreen Energy, que pega você pela mão e cuida de tudo: parte técnica, burocracia, integração. Você continua recebendo energia normalmente, com duas faturas: uma da distribuidora, outra da iGreen — só que essa vem com economia garantida. Aqui pra mim, em São Paulo, a redução é de no mínimo 10% garantida em contrato! É simples, digital, e faz diferença pro seu bolso… e pro planeta.E você ainda faz parte de um clube de descontos em mais de 60 mil lojas pelo Brasil.Sabe o que isso significa?Que agora a decisão é sua.Acesse conexaogreen.comE escolha a energia que faz sentido. ----------------------------------------------- .... MUNDO CAFÉ BRASIL: https://mundocafebrasil.com Curso Merdades e Ventiras - Como se proteger da mídia que faz sua cabeça? https://merdadeseventiras.com.br/curso/ Conheça o Podcast Café com Leite: https://portalcafebrasil.com.br/todos/cafe-com-leite/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lucianopires/ Para conhecer minhas palestras: https://lucianopires.com.br Vem dar uma olhada na nossa loja: https://lucianopires.com.br/loja Edição e animação: Daniel Pires ....................................................................................................................................................................

The United States, through USAID, not only supplied a big chunk of the world's humanitarian aid, it also provided almost all of the logistical support for other aid organizations to deliver relief as well. Now in Sudan, where the state has disintegrated and millions of people are trying to flee anarchy and civil war, virtually no Western organization is there to provide food and shelter. And no American is working on trying to end the conflict. Plus, Tim Cook joins the CEO suck-up to Trump, a top, well-regarded FBI official who was trying to hold the line under Kash has been pushed out, and Putin may be trying to pause Ukraine's punishing air war on Russia—but he's not showing any sign that he wants peace. Anne Applebaum joins Tim Miller. show notes Anne's piece on Sudan, “The Most Nihilistic Conflict on Earth” Anne's wildflower garden The NYT on the continuing purge at the FBI Anne's "Autocracy, Inc.," out in paperback Aug. 25 "The Director," book recommendation from Anne For a limited time only, get 60% off your first order PLUS free shipping when you head to Smalls.com/THEBULWARK

Ambassador Karl Hofmann has a 30 year career in global development, first as a career diplomat including US Ambassador for Togo and followed by 2 decades as President of NGO giant PSI. He now serves as CEO to HealthX Partners. We delve into how simply drinking water in many countries could be a death sentence and also why the west should care. We also discuss the state of affairs following the abolishment of USAID and its deadly effect on the world's population.

August 6th, 2025: As the Epstein Scandal continues to unfold, victims decry the Trump administration's handling of the case. Nicolle Wallace and our top experts ponder why top Trump administration officials are meeting to discuss strategy without some of the most important people affected by Epstein – the victims. Plus, she and our experts unpack the gerrymandering efforts in Texas and new polling that highlights Trump's growing unpopularity. 

In Florida, National Guard troops were activated to support Immigration and Custom Enforcement officers in nine cities. The move is part of a larger escalation that expands the military's involvement in immigration operations. Also: today's stories, including residents rebuilding after a volcano eruption in the Canary Islands, aid matchmakers filling the gap left by USAID funding cuts, and the wider impact of Corporation for Public Broadcasting's shutdown on the media landscape. Join the Monitor's Yvonne Zipp for today's news.

This explosive monologue uncovers what the host calls a "Marxist revolution" threatening to dismantle American society. The host presents a series of shocking revelations that he claims are proof of a sinister agenda by government agencies and political figures. The segment's most dramatic claims include: The Sins of USAID: The host reveals "insane" and "corrupt" spending by the U.S. Agency for International Development, alleging that taxpayer money has been funneled into a radical social agenda, including funding for "sex changes" in Guatemala and "transgender opera in Colombia," while also providing aid to terrorists. The War on Our Streets: The host frames a brutal carjacking incident in Washington D.C.—in which a young man was mercilessly beaten for intervening—as a direct consequence of a political agenda that has turned Democrat-run cities into "no-go zones" run by gangs and criminals. He praises the young man, Edward Corstine, as a hero for his courageous act. The Great Olympic Power Grab: The host claims that Trump's creation of a new Olympic Committee for the LA Games is a necessary measure to prevent chaos and "street violence" funded by the Chinese Communist Party. He paints a picture of a desperate struggle to protect the country from internal and external enemies. The Vaccine Lie: The host presents what he calls a "bombshell" confession, claiming that the federal government, through the RFK, has admitted that mRNA vaccines failed to stop the pandemic and actually caused variants. He alleges that this was a deliberate lie, and that the FBI actively censored scientists, including the founder of mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, to prevent a scientific debate. The host warns of the devastating long-term health consequences of the vaccines, claiming they may cause sterility in young girls, and frames the entire pandemic response as a conspiracy to destroy the economy and impose an authoritarian lockdown. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-democratic-legislators-flee-state-to-protest-gops-redistricting-plan/#:~:text=Democratic%20lawmakers%20who%20fled%20Texas%20speak%20out%20after%20being%20threatened,more%20than%20its%20current%20districts.

This extended analysis presents a host's argument that America is locked in a battle against a "Marxist revolution" and a web of corruption that extends from federal agencies to local governments. The host weaves together several seemingly unrelated events to form a cohesive narrative of a nation under attack. Key claims and topics covered include: The 2020 Census Fraud: The host alleges that the 2020 U.S. Census was rigged through widespread fraud by census workers. He claims this led to a misallocation of congressional seats and electoral votes, effectively "stealing" power from Republican-leaning states and handing it to Democrats. Weaponized Bureaucracy: The host asserts that federal agencies, including the Census Bureau, the FBI, and USAID, have been "weaponized" to serve a radical political agenda. He cites examples of what he calls frivolous and corrupt spending by USAID and alleges that FBI agents were used to censor critics of government policy. The Breakdown of Law and Order: The host points to rising crime in Democrat-run cities, using a violent carjacking in D.C. as a specific example. He ties this to a Marxist ideology that he claims protects criminals and allows them to terrorize citizens, and praises a young man who bravely fought back. The COVID-19 Vaccine Conspiracy: The host claims that a major government cover-up occurred during the pandemic. He alleges that federal officials knew that mRNA vaccines were ineffective and caused new variants, but they suppressed this information by censoring scientists and intimidating the public. The host warns of the vaccines' potential long-term dangers and frames the entire pandemic response as a political ploy to destroy the economy and impose social control. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/some-census-takers-who-fudged-2020-data-didnt-get-fired-federal-report-says#:~:text=READ%20MORE%3A%20Census%20takers%20say,members'%20relationships%20to%20one%20another.

The shadow of the First World War hung over the world. The victors were exhausted and the vanquished wanted revenge. We discuss the death of European democracies, the global origins of WWII, and America's reluctant journey to war. -Support the Showhttps://buymeacoffee.com/amhistoryremix-Find the full transcript of this episode including citations at our website:https://www.americanhistoryremix.com/episodeguide/road-to-war-In this episode we cover….Introduction [0:00-02:41]World War I [02:41-07:04]US Returns to Isolationism [07:04-09:15]Italy & the Rise of Mussolini [09:15-11:19]The Philosophy of Fascism [11:19-13:30]Germany's Defeat [13:30-15:29]The Nazi Party [15:29-18:00]The Weimar Republic [18:00-19:51]Failed Nazi Coup [19:51-21:49]Manchuria [21:49-26:40]Nazi Breakthrough [26:40-30:25]Ethiopia [30:25-31:55]American Neutrality [31:55-33:10]The Spanish Civil War & Neutrality [33:10-37:04]Japanese in China [37:04-39:45]German Rearmament & the Rhineland [39:45-41:35] Austria & Czechoslovakia [41:35-45:27]Nazi-Soviet Pact [45:27-46:59]American Response to War [46:59-48:24]Germany Takes Europe [48:24-51:39]Jewish Refugees [51:39-55:19]US Aid to Britain [55:19-57:33]Roosevelt & Third Term [57:33-59:54]Battle of Britain & Destroyer Deal [59:54-01:02:52]America Initiates Draft [01:02:52-01:04:19]Lend-Lease & Atlantic Charter [01:04:19-01:06:40]Germany Invades Soviet Union [01:06:40-01:09:30]Conflict in the Pacific [01:09:30-01:12:31]Roosevelt & Japan [01:12:31-01:15:01]Pearl Harbor [01:15:01-01:16:47]Conclusion [01:16:47-01:19:11]-To dive deeper into these topics (affiliate links):Jane Caplan, ed. Nazi Germany.https://tinyurl.com/Caplan-Nazi-GermanyJustus D. Doenecke and John Edward Wilz, From Isolation to War, 1931-1941.https://tinyurl.com/Doenecke-and-WilzTimothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. https://tinyurl.com/Snyder-BloodlandsDavid M. Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. https://tinyurl.com/Kennedy-Freedom-from-FearJohn Merriman, A History of Modern Europe: From the Renaissance to the Present.https://tinyurl.com/Merriman-A-History-Support the showSupport the Show https://buymeacoffee.com/amhistoryremix

Today I'm bringing you my interview with Cecilia Thiam, a 35-year-old Swiss-American humanitarian aid worker who has spent most of her career living and working in sub-saharan Africa. She lost her job after the Trump administration enacted sweeping cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Now, she has had to scrap her plans, move to a new country with her 6-year-old daughter while parenting solo, and re-think her entire career.We spoke on July 10, 2025.This is part of a theme we are pursuing looking at how the Trump administration is affecting people's personal finances. If you know someone who would be a great guest, get in touch at otherpeoplespockets@gmail.com or on Instagram or TikTok at @itsmayamoney. And on LinkedIn!Thank you for supporting this show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This explosive segment exposes the hidden power struggle inside the Republican Party, revealing that it's not Democrats blocking Donald Trump's nominees—it's GOP leadership itself, specifically Senate Republican leader John Thune. While Fox News and others pin the blame on Democrats, the real story is that establishment Republicans are leveraging procedural Senate rules and holding Trump's agenda hostage unless he agrees to restore billions in slush fund spending—most notably for USAID, a fund allegedly tied to globalist agendas, CIA operations, censorship programs, and shady foreign aid. The commentary traces the roots of this sabotage to Bush-era uniparty politics, calling out the quiet alliance between globalist Republicans and Democrats who seek to stop Trump's proposed budget cuts (nicknamed the “Doge Cuts”). With Trump forced to play along publicly or risk total legislative gridlock, the segment paints a chilling picture of internal betrayal, corruption, and a party leadership more aligned with the deep state than with its own president.

These back-to-back segments unravel a dual crisis facing Donald Trump's presidency: a collapsing trust in official economic data and a coordinated Republican establishment effort to derail his agenda. The first segment exposes how jobs numbers have been falsified under Biden—and possibly continuing under Trump—thanks to holdovers in federal agencies. The second reveals how Senate Republicans, not Democrats, are the real force blocking Trump's nominees and demanding he restore billions in slush fund spending, particularly to USAID, which is accused of funding censorship, foreign interference, and even terrorism. Together, the transcripts paint a portrait of a presidency under siege—not from the opposition party, but from within his own.

Dr. Ken Staley, Palantir, has served in health security positions in the George W. Bush and first Trump administrations, with time in-between in private sector biopharma. Palantir was founded after the 9/11 Commission to bring together data streams to enhance security and protect liberties. As director of the President's Malaria Initiative in the Trump first term, Ken oversaw an effort to use data faster and in a more integrated way, to understand outbreaks, supply chains, and health impacts. He participated in the Lancet Commission as it looked forward on how to make malaria eradication a strategic end-goal. As Covid-19 coordinator at USAID during the 2020 Covid-19 outbreak, Ken shifted communications to the cloud to permit continuity of operations. Technology innovations in malaria control – vaccines and bacteria to disrupt mosquitoes – hold considerable promise. “We have a lot of cool stuff on the horizon.” In regard to WHO, the pandemic treaty, and reforms of the International Health Regulations (IHR), “missions are sacred, organizations are not.” On foreign aid, “the context has changed.”  

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

A new investigation reveals how the abrupt U.S. foreign aid cuts have left critical water and sanitation projects unfinished in over a dozen countries, placing millions at immediate risk from flooding, disease, food insecurity, and other miseries. Was it worth it? Colin Thomas-Jensen, Director of Communications of Advocacy and Impact at the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative, joins Ian Hoch to talk about it.

World news in 7 minutes. Friday 1st August 2025.Today: Sudan hunger. South Sudan Uganda shooting. Kenya alcohol reforms. Ukraine Kyiv hit. France USAID contraceptives. US Brazil tariffs. Colombia deforesting. Palestine aid drops. Myanmar military elections. Japan Korea heat. Australia big insects.SEND7 is supported by our amazing listeners like you.Our supporters get access to the transcripts and vocabulary list written by us every day.Our supporters get access to an English worksheet made by us once per week.Our supporters get access to our weekly news quiz made by us once per week.We give 10% of our profit to Effective Altruism charities. You can become a supporter at send7.org/supportAugust €10 discount code = august2025Contact us at podcast@send7.org or send an audio message at speakpipe.com/send7Please leave a rating on Apple podcasts or Spotify.We don't use AI! Every word is written and recorded by us!Since 2020, SEND7 (Simple English News Daily in 7 minutes) has been telling the most important world news stories in intermediate English. Every day, listen to the most important stories from every part of the world in slow, clear English. Whether you are an intermediate learner trying to improve your advanced, technical and business English, or if you are a native speaker who just wants to hear a summary of world news as fast as possible, join Stephen Devincenzi, Juliet Martin and Niall Moore every morning. Transcripts, vocabulary lists, worksheets and our weekly world news quiz are available for our amazing supporters at send7.org. Simple English News Daily is the perfect way to start your day, by practising your listening skills and understanding complicated daily news in a simple way. It is also highly valuable for IELTS and TOEFL students. Students, teachers, TEFL teachers, and people with English as a second language, tell us that they use SEND7 because they can learn English through hard topics, but simple grammar. We believe that the best way to improve your spoken English is to immerse yourself in real-life content, such as what our podcast provides. SEND7 covers all news including politics, business, natural events and human rights. Whether it is happening in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas or Oceania, you will hear it on SEND7, and you will understand it.Get your daily news and improve your English listening in the time it takes to make a coffee.For more information visit send7.org/contact or send an email to podcast@send7.org

Hello,Today, we have on Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees international and a longtime humanitarian and emergency operator. He has served in senior appointments in two U.S. administrations. He was the director of USAID's Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance in the Obama administration and also worked in the Biden administration. Jeremy has been sounding the alarm about the famine in Gaza for a number of months, and has done a series of really helpful explainer threads on Twitter that have gone viral. We've invited him on the show today to help us understand the starvation crisis that is now in full swing.Tyler and I both learned a ton in this episode about how famines happen, the infrastructure for aid, and the political obstructions in the way. In the end, we both came away somehow feeling both appropriately horrified but also not as nihilistic as we did before we talked to Jeremy. A really important episode of the show. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe

One day after the UK makes a similar statement, Ottawa announces plans to recognize Palestinian statehood in September. We'll reach Canada's former Ambassador to the United Nations. The head of the Stephen Lewis Foundation tells us what a new million-dollar donation will mean for organizations whose capacity to help was suddenly slashed when the Trump Administration cut billions in USAID funding.A Maui resident tells us he and his neighbours were lucky to avoid any major damage after living through a tsunami warning last night. But that doesn't mean they should be any less prepared next time.A St. John's fire chief tells us about the fires that destroyed two historic fishing stages last night and how it felt to watch them burn, helpless to stop the flames.Canada's 18-year-old swimming sensation Summer McIntosh is chasing five individual golds this week at the World Aquatics Championships in Singapore. Her mother, a former Olympic swimmer herself, tells us what it's like to watch her daughter lean all the way in.A man in Argentina was shocked, outraged and then really, really embarrassed after a Google Street View camera captured him in his yard ... fully naked with his bottom on full display.As It Happens, the Wednesday Edition. Radio that imagines he'll be happy when the whole incident is in the rearview.

EPISODE 142 | Project 2025: The First 180 Days (World Is Weird 15) Donald Trump said he didn't really know much about Project 2025 except that they sure liked him. And yet, of 313 specific Project 2025 initiatives, he's already enacted 108 of them, and another 63 are actively in the works as of this recording. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say? Project 2025 put a lot of importance of a sort of blitzkrieg if their boy won the 2024 election, a flurry of activity to define the first 180 days of his presidency and hopefully create so much change that, no matter what happens in future elections (if there are any) many of the changes they want to see happen will end up sticking around. That benchmark date was July 19.  So, let's look at Project 2025. What they say, and some of their own justifications for why they say it. And we'll also see just how much Trump has actively assisted them in realizing their vision for a very different America than the world has ever seen.  Like what we do? Then buy us a beer or three via our page on Buy Me a Coffee.  Review us here or on IMDb. And seriously, subscribe, will ya?  SECTIONS 02:40 - The Mandate for Leadership, Version IX - The first of the Four Pillars, "cultural Marxism"; yes, it really is Gilead; white nationalists and Christian nationalists, family is the key, four main goals 08:52 - Three More Pillars - Info gathering, the Presidential Administration Academy, "climate change" is code for Christian depopulation, a secret playbook, Carter was evil, the DoD and Space Force 13:16 - Economy - General ideas, "fair trade" vs. "free trade", the Consumer Protection Bureau, the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce 21:05 - Environment - General ideas, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior 25:09 - Transportation - General ideas, get married and make babies or no funding, the Department of Transportation, the FAA 27:11 - Education - General ideas, education is a private good, not a public one; the Department of Education, Parental Bill of Rights 33:12 - Identity - General ideas, LGBTQ+ and trans people ("radical gender ideology"), DEI, pornography 36:15 - Journalism - General ideas, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the FCC, the US Agency for Global Media (now a One America News organ), the Open Technology Fund 38:39 - Healthcare - General ideas, Medicaid, Medicare, the Department of Veteran Affairs, the CDC, the Department of Health is really the Department of Life, marriage, abortions, Planned Parenthood, in vitro fertilization, teen pregnancy, the Department of Health and Human Services 47:43 - Legal - General ideas, affirmative action, the FBI, the death penalty, the Secret Service as military cops, the Department of Justice, FACE Act no longer enforced, don't say trans 53:16 - National Security - Foreign policy shifts, USAID, NATO, nukes, the Department of Defense, Cybercom, the State Department, strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia 57:26 - Immigration - CBP, ICE, TSA, USCIS, refugees, asylum pay-to-stay scheme, birthright citizenship, mass deportations, more police, FEMA funds, the Department of Homeland Security 01:04:42 - Elections - General ideas, the FEC gets limits, photo ID to vote, armed police at polling stations 01:06:58 - Expansion of the Executive - The President is boss, loyalists only, the Insurrection Act of 1807, more surveillance 01:09:24 - Federal Staffing - Bring back the spoils-and-patronage system, the White House, the National Security Council 01:12:01 - Final Thoughts - Trump totally knows about Project 2025, the vision for an America-that-never-was, why the hell didn't you vote? Music by Fanette Ronjat More Info Project 2025 Tracker website (updated daily) r/Keep_Track Full text of "Project 2025 Mandate For Leadership" The “Mandate for Leadership” Series Inside Project 2025's Secret Training Videos - video on ProPublica YouTube channel 5 Reasons Leftists HATE Project 2025 from the Heritage Foundation Project 2025 Quick Read

Gaza is strewn with rubble, the war's end is nowhere in sight, and an entirely predictable humanitarian disaster is unfolding. With daily reports of starvation and malnutrition, Israel must provide a systematic and orderly distribution of large amounts of aid to stem the crisis—and stave off a Mad Max situation. Meanwhile, our abdication on USAID has led to human suffering elsewhere in the world, and Trump's supporters still seem more preoccupied with trans people in women's sports and a swimmer who came in 5th place. Plus, Trump's betrayal of the voters who fervently believed he would expose a global pedophile ring, how being gay has evolved into a 'super sin' among evangelicals, and reading the tea leaves on whether Trump is really getting tougher on Putin or if it's just a mood swing. David French joins Tim Miller. show notes David's piece on Christian cancel culture and HBO's "Back to the Frontier." David's column on MAGA and Epstein How Israel made the same mistakes the U.S. did in Iraq — David's piece from last year Go to https://www.american-giant.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code BULWARK. Thanks to American Giant for sponsoring the show!

We start with yesterday's shooting in Manhattan as authorities continue the search for a motive. The UK has said it will recognize a Palestinian state in September, unless certain conditions are met. We explain why there's been an upturn in consumer confidence. We reveal why the government is set to burn $9.7 million dollars in US-purchased USAID contraceptives. Plus, an update in the trial of a Colorado dentist accused of murdering his wife. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

SPONSORS: 1) GROUND NEWS: Go to https://ground.news/julian for a better way to stay informed. Subscribe for 40% off unlimited access to worldwide coverage through my link PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey WATCH MIKE BENZ ROUND 1 HERE: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1DVx7tcKIg2716Bsrlw0jx?si=RZSlOd2hRjODshhsbST1uQ (***TIMESTAMPS in Description Below) ~ Mike Benz is a former official with the U.S. Department of State and current Executive Director of the Foundation For Freedom Online, is a free speech watchdog organization dedicated to restoring the promise of a free and open Internet. MIKE's LINKS: X: https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber WEBSITE: https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/ FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP ****TIMESTAMPS**** 00:00:00 – Iran-Contra Origins, CIA Structure, Proprietaries, Halloween Massacre, Khashoggi 00:10:51 – Proxy War, Khashoggi '83 Pitch, USAID's Permanent Role, Southern Air, Epstein Ties 00:11:51 – Southern Air Fallout, Epstein-Wexner, Fake Passport, CIA Hunter Link, Maxine 1998 00:36:26 – Reagan's NGO Web, Taliban Opium, 100-Year War Funding, Afghan Opium Boom 00:46:50 – 3rd Reform Phase, USAID Dirty Work, Epstein Intel Link, Trump Iran-Contra Rise 00:54:41 – Epstein & CIA, Ed Meese Iraq, CIA Financiers, 16 Clinton Visits 01:03:09 – Epstein-Israel Deals, Bechtel-CIA, OPIC 01:10:24 – Trump, DFC & Ben Black, Rappaport Dossier, Bill Barr Cover-up, Columbia Intel 01:23:12 – Harvard Endowment Ops, Columbia CIA Merge, Sudan Ops, Harvard Hedge Fund 01:45:10 – Soviet Collapse = Soft Power, Covert Action, Union Street Ops, CIA Funds Teachers 01:54:35 – Schizophrenic Public, Internal Ops, Rise of Covert Society 02:03:48 – Breaking the Halo, Credibility Crisis, Zelensky Crackdowns, Control Functions 02:14:09 – Harvard 'De-Wokify', Netanyahu vs Soros, MAGA Structure 02:28:06 – Epstein Net Worth Spike, Saudi–Elon Twitter, Beyond Blackmail, Disclosure Paralysis02:44:38 – Mike's Work CREDITS: - Host, Editor & Producer: Julian Dorey - COO, Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ - In-Studio Producer: Joey Deef - https://www.instagram.com/joeydeef/ Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 323 - Mike Benz Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ball earth proof. Calls: POC's in govt! Return to the Land. Crime rates. WHM "honorable" mentions, from Henry Ford to John Brown!Hake on Caledonian Elixir tonight https://www.youtube.com/@caledonianelixir4702The Hake Report, Monday, July 28, 2025 ADTIMESTAMPS* (0:00:00) Start* (0:04:20) Super: Greggatron, shoutouts* (0:07:09) Hey, guys!* (0:09:23) Little drawing of a BE sunset (not FE)* (0:13:16) JERMAINE, Canada: Omar Fateh, MN mayor candidate* (0:18:46) JERMAINE, Charleston White: W's are cooked* (0:21:41) MARK, L.A.: Back to the Land, Freedom Georgia, Cider of whites* (0:26:28) MARK: Hulk Hogan RIP, black TikTok* (0:31:23) MARK: Eldon Edwards, riots, Biden "judge," Snake Pit backbiting* (0:38:15) MARK: Jamaicans are OK! Murder rates* (0:40:26) Homicide fact check by Grok, liberal* (0:47:30) ALLEN, MI: Nathan Bedford Forrest park story* (0:51:30) ALLEN: Elizabeth Dilling, Oscar Wilde* (0:55:12) GREGGATRON, Midwest… Mad about whites-only?!* (1:00:31) WILLIAM III: Liz Taylor, Joe DiMaggio, Henry Ford… Socialism, Trump* (1:10:55) WILLIAM: crime, DOJ… black incidents* (1:16:04) Super: Polled… Henry Ford?* (1:19:34) Coffees…* (1:20:49) Coffee: Hart-Cellar act* (1:27:02) Lindsay C Jenkins … Israel-Hamas war USAID* (1:33:49) Coffees: John Brown* (1:43:13) ROBERT, KS: Abe Lincoln put us back in slavery* (1:47:45) ROBERT: FE brilliance* (1:49:54) KAYA, NC… WHM, my old boss… fave Mark* (1:53:39) ClosingBLOG https://www.thehakereport.com/blog/2025/7/28/the-hake-report-mon-7-28-25PODCAST / Substack HAKE NEWS from JLP https://www.thehakereport.com/jlp-news/2025/7/28/same-spirit-of-the-mob-is-in-you-jlp-mon-7-28-25–Hake is live M-F 9-11a PT (11-1CT/12-2ET) Call-in 1-888-775-3773 https://www.thehakereport.com/showVIDEO: YT - Rumble* - Pilled - FB - X - BitChute (Live) - Odysee*PODCAST: Substack - Apple - Spotify - Castbox - Podcast Addict*SUPER CHAT https://buymeacoffee.com/thehakereportSHOP - Printify (new!) - Cameo | All My LinksJLP Network: JLP - Church - TFS - Nick - PunchieThe views expressed on this show do not represent BOND, Jesse Lee Peterson, the Network, this Host, or this platform. No endorsement or opposition implied!The show is for general information and entertainment, and everything should be taken with a grain of salt! Get full access to HAKE at thehakereport.substack.com/subscribe

As appalling scenes of starvation and destruction out of Gaza continue, Christiane speaks exclusively with the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister. The two discuss the hunger crisis in the enclave, who governs the day after the Gaza war ends, and hopes for Palestinian statehood. Then, Oscar-winning filmmaker Mstyslav Chernov joins Christiane to discuss his new documentary "2000 Meters to Andriivka," bringing the brutality of war alive on-screen and connecting viewers to the everyday men fighting on the front lines. Also, from Downton Abbey to Hollywood's golden age, actress Elizabeth McGovern talks to Christiane about her new play about Ava Gardner, and the men who loved her.  Plus, CNN's Isobel Yeung travels to Afghanistan reporting on the devastating impacts and distressing reality on the ground after USAID cuts. And, from her archives, 72 years after the armistice agreement ended fighting in the Korean War,  Christiane's report from Pyongyang about how the legacy of that war is still fueling North Korean hatred towards the United States decades later.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The former secretary of state isn't a flamethrower, but he certainly has strong opinions. In this wide-ranging conversation with Stephen Dubner, he gives them all: on Israel, Gaza, China, Iran, Russia, Biden, Trump — and the rest of the world. SOURCES:Antony Blinken, former Secretary of State. RESOURCES:"Evaluating the impact of two decades of USAID interventions and projecting the effects of defunding on mortality up to 2030: a retrospective impact evaluation and forecasting analysis," by Daniella Cavalcanti, Lucas de Oliveira Ferreira de Sales, Andrea Ferreira da Silva, Elisa Basterra, Daiana Pena, Caterina Monti, Gonzalo Barreix, Natanael Silva, Paula Vaz, Francisco Saute, Gonzalo Fanjul, Quique Bassat, Denise Naniche, James Macinko, and Davide Rasella (The Lancet, 2025)."What Bombs Can't Do in Iran," by Karim Sadjadpour (New York Times, 2025)."A New Palestinian Offer for Peace With Israel," by Elliot Kaufman (Wall Street Journal, 2025)."America's Strategy of Renewal," by Antony Blinken (Foreign Affairs, 2024).

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 PictureTrump called the UN out on their fake climate agenda. The UN wants to sue, if they try they will lose. D's try to say Trump raised prices on food, boomerang, it was Biden, D's delete the X Post. Australia and many other countries will accept beef from the US. Trump exposes the Fed, if they can't manage a renovation, how are they managing the US. Trump might give a rebate to the people. The [DS] pushed the Epstein narrative, they tried to divide MAGA, they fell right into the trap that Trump set. They want their manipulated docs released but Trump wants the Grand Jury info released and Ghilliane  Maxwell was interviewed, will she spill the beans. Trump as the [DS] right where he wants them, he has the floor now and all eyes are on Obama, pain is happening now, justice is coming.   Economy Trump Issues Perfect Response After UN Pushes Policy Where US Can Be Sued Over Climate  After the International Court of Justice ruled this week that countries are required to cut emissions in the name of climate change, the White House gave a simple reply: “America first.” Any decision from the court is non-binding, but far-left advocates are hopeful it will cause a chain reaction, leading to “domestic lawsuits” and “other legal actions,” according to the Associated Press. The case was reportedly brought before the United Nations' highest court by small island countries, seeking to force international standards onto larger governments. When Axios reached out to the White House Monday regarding potential penalties the United States could face, the response was direct. “As always, President Trump and the entire Administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans,” Spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement. Spot on. We cannot be sucked into global affairs — and follow edicts from other countries — as we rebuild our own domestic infrastructure. Hence, Trump's move to withdraw America from the Paris Climate Accords — something he'd already done in his first term, but had to do again after former President Joe Biden reversed it. “[The ICJ case] specifically calls out the responsibility of industrialized nations to take the lead in limiting emissions,” Axios reported. Are we supposed to believe that countries like China and Russia are going to have their feet held to the fire on pollution? The target seems to be the United States. Why? Because we have far-left lawmakers willing to throw trillions of dollars at an issue that hasn't even been fully settled. First, it was “global warming” because the polar caps were melting, setting up an ice age. Then the argument shifted to temperatures getting hotter, and the phrase was switched to climate change. Every time a doomsday event was predicted, it got pushed off. “The Day After Tomorrow” never came. That's red flag number one. Red flag number two is the potential money-laundering aspect. After laundering tactics were exposed inside the USAID by Elon Musk's DOGE team, what's to stop climate change funding from being used as a personal piggy bank? During the Obama years, the firm Solyndra had the federal government cosign a loan for over $500 million in solar technology before it went under, Forbes reported. The same Forbes piece highlighted how several similar firms were given hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, yet they all failed. Where did the money go? Source: thegatewaypundit.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.

The A.M. Update covers President Trump's tense visit to the Federal Reserve, clashing with Chair Jerome Powell over the $3.1 billion renovation cost, which Powell disputed, citing a completed Martin Building renovation. California Governor Gavin Newsom admits to participating in a coordinated effort to oust Biden, confirming a year-old Democratic coup. JD Vance calls out Microsoft for firing 9,000 American workers while seeking H1B visas, questioning their labor shortage claims. Joy Behar hints at The View's hiatus, raising cancellation rumors amid broader media shifts tied to USAID funding. Hulk Hogan's passing at 71 is mourned, highlighting his Christian conversion and cultural impact. Ask or Tell Me Anything addresses AI data center energy concerns, nuclear power's future, Real ID misconceptions, stablecoin definitions, and skepticism about John MacArthur abuse allegations.   Trump Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, $3.1 billion renovation, Gavin Newsom, Biden coup, JD Vance, Microsoft H1B visas, Joy Behar, The View hiatus, Hulk Hogan, Christian conversion, AI data centers, nuclear power, Real ID, stablecoin, John MacArthur

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...

A CNN exclusive, newly unearthed videos and photos of then-citizen Donald Trump and Jeffey Epstein together. This, as some House Republicans defy Speaker Mike Johnson over the Epstein issue. Plus, Secretary of State Marco Rubio insists that "no one has died" because the Trump administration dismantled USAID. CNN's Isobel Yeung traveled to Afghanistan to investigate. Plus, remembering Ozzy Osbourne, the legendary and often outrageous heavy metal singer turned reality TV star is dead at 76. Osbourne's friend, former Black Flag frontman Henry Rollins, shares fond memories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Glenn takes a moment to acknowledge all the wins conservatives have had in the last six months, including significant progress in pushing back on transgender ideology, shrinking the government, strengthening the border, and defunding USAID, NPR, and PBS. We haven't had a president with President Trump's amount of bravery since Ronald Reagan. Glenn calls out Democrats for their racist belief that America needs illegal immigrants for labor. Stu reviews recent polling that shows how Americans feel about some of Trump's more controversial policies. Glenn and Stu react to Hunter Biden's expletive-filled rant against conservative immigration policies. Does the Left understand how racist it appears when discussing the importance of illegal immigration? Glenn and Stu discuss the insanity of New York City citizens possibly electing an Islamist socialist. Bill Essayli, U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, joins to discuss how the Left's anti-ICE rhetoric has contributed to a rise in attacks on federal agents across the country. Glenn and Stu discuss the recent cancellation of Stephen Colbert's show and why CBS was within its rights to end it.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, what's going on in Syria is the ethnic cleansing and slaughter of the Druze and Christians by groups like ISIS, now operating under different names within the Syrian regime. Israel is the only county to help protect the Druze and Tom Barrack, an envoy to Syria, Turkey, and Lebanon, is a disaster for condemning Israel's defensive actions as complicating the situation. Barrack's stance motivates terrorists, and he needs to be fired. Zuhdi Jasser calls in to explain that the Islamist regime in Syria and its alliances with Iran and Hezbollah have fueled sectarian violence, targeting these minority groups. There needs to be greater attention to the suffering of Christians and Druze under Syria's government. Also, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents which revealed that Obama administration officials fabricated the Russia collusion narrative to undermine President Trump after his 2016 election win. These revelations confirm, again, that Mark Levin was right in 2017 when he first broke this news. Levin's March 3, 2017 broadcast was the key to everything, that all of the Obama government was being used against Trump. Later, USAID, the State Department and other federal agencies under the Biden administration let more than $900 million in taxpayer funds go to opposing PM Benjamin Netanyahu and to support terror groups. This is why trump got rid of USAID - it was a left-wing bank. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Trump administration is dismantling — or quite literally burning up — both domestic and international food aid programs. The actions will likely usher in a new era of hunger. This episode was produced by Peter Balonon-Rosen and Gabrielle Berbey, edited by Amina Al-Sadi, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, engineered by Patrick Boyd, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. Transcript at vox.com/today-explained-podcast. A discarded USAID wheat sack outside a shelter in Mekele, Ethiopia. Photo by XIMENA BORRAZAS/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Since Jan. 20, 84% of U.S. Agency for International Development grants and contracts have been terminated and 93% of agency staff have been fired. On July 1, the State Department absorbed the remaining staff and grants. On Lawfare Daily, Lawfare Associate Editor for Communications Anna Hickey spoke to New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof about the global impact of the Trump administration's dismantling of the USAID and foreign assistance cuts. They discussed what Kristof saw in his reporting trips to Liberia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, and South Sudan, and how the cuts to foreign assistance put U.S. national security at risk. Please note that this episode contains content that some people may find disturbing. Listener discretion is advised. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.