Talk:United States Agency for International Development

Musk/DOGE

Nothing about this, yet? Maybe add to section "Second Trump administration".

• Knickmeyer, Ellen (February 2, 2025), "USAID security leaders on leave after trying to keep Musk's DOGE from classified info, officials say", AP News

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Musk now saying he fed USAID "into the wood chipper."

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1886307316804263979 QINGCHARLES (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Links in the article to usaid.gov are now non-functional because of ongoing political turmoil 68.47.12.189 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

[1] works for me. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

This is in need of a serious rewrite.

So, the callout info box lists November 3, 1961 as the date the agency was formed but in the article there is mention of events from 1915, World War II and other events well before the agency was even created. This makes it seem as if the agency was active before ’61 but it wasn’t and it should be made clear that the relief efforts mentioned were executed before the agency was even created. I don’t know if that means adding some kind of timeline to the article but as an IP ‘editor’ I no longer have an interest in working on anything on the project having seen the behavior of editors with active agendas working to shape articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.137.82 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"As of Feb. 3 it was still available"

What does "still available" mean? 2601:642:4F84:1590:FDD3:A31B:19A8:2C30 (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Working. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

But is it really? Several news organizations have noted the opposite. Norbillian (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Norbillian Have you tried the link? That's the only way to know. Although ., hm, it is a Google thing! Doug Weller talk 17:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That hardly makes sense. USAID is an organization, not a refrigerator. 2A00:79E1:2E00:9601:A445:6108:8AFA:E42D (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

the article is moving fast. “It” and “working” referred to the website with the url USAid.gov

The material isn’t in the article anymore. This thread is obsolete. Mikewem (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2025

At the end of the summary is the sentence: "As of February 3, 2025 it was working." Which, to me, seems totally superfluous. What was working? Working in what way? It should be cut IMO. GSV Kakistocrat (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Has been removed Mikewem (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2025 (2)

Change "With a budget of over $50 billion" to "With an annual budget of about $40 billion" to reflect actual budget information. Please add a citation; you could use ForeignAssistance.gov as the source. Hancock48 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done: The reference previously only appeared in info box. I deleted that and moved it to the lead per MOS:INFOBOXREF. 50 appears to be the correct number per RS. The nuance of language is that 50 is the allocated budget, and 40ish is the amount actually spent. Mikewem (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Can the president shut down USAID permanently? And why does Elon Musk have a say?

Here's a sentence currently in the lede: "On February 3, 2025, Elon Musk announced in an X Spaces conversation that he and Trump were in the process of shutting down USAID permanently."

This article should clearly state (1) whether or not Donald Trump has that authority and (2) what exactly Elon Musk's role is.

There's only one other reference to Musk in this article; it's noted at that point that Musk has said USAID is a "criminal organization." That is of course bonkers, but it's not challenged in this article. Shouldn't it be? NME Frigate (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed the word "permanently" from that sentence in the lede because 1) The citations don't quote him as using that word and 2) To me, his phrasing begs the question: "What does 'shutting down' USAID actually mean? Reining it in, reforming it, actually getting rid of it?") Until it's completely clear as to what Trump's policy is, whether Congress will oppose his agenda (if his agenda is one that requires congressional approval), or if it faces judicial challenges, I don't think it's necessary to put in legal opinions on what can or can't be done.

Musk calling USAID a "criminal organization" should of course only be listed as his opinion if it's really going to be on here at all, but the criticisms and controversies section has a section on "Financial conflicts of interest" that shows that he isn't nearly the only one to ever accuse it of being unduly influenced. Cookieo131 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Of possible interest (perhaps depending on what happens) is this article by Tess Bridgeman at Just Security:

Can the President Dissolve USAID by Executive Order? (Feb. 1)

Bridgeman quotes from The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which does not seem to be explicitly mentioned in this Wikipedia article, to argue, among other things, that (1) USAID, although established by an executive order in 1961 pursuant to a law passed that year, was codified into law by Congress in 1998; and (2) at this time, a President does not have the legal authority to close USAID entirely:

"Also in the 1998 Act, Congress gave the president a near-term, time-limited opportunity to reorganize these departments (22 USC 6601). Specifically, the Act provides, among other things, that within '60 days after October 21, 1998,' the president may, in a “reorganization plan and report” to be provided to Congress" (emphasis Bridgeman's).

Accordingly, I'd like to suggest a small change to this sentence in the History > Evolving organization linkages section: "Although the law authorized the president to abolish USAID, President Clinton did not exercise this option."

My suggestion is to change that to: "Although the law authorized the president to abolish USAID at that time, President Clinton did not exercise this option before an October 1998 deadline."

The sentence as currently given in this article might be read to imply that a later president could avail himself of an option not exercised by Clinton. NME Frigate (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I do think that it's time to note in this article that many critics have said that shutting down USAID, as apparently has effectively happened, it is an illegal or even unconstitutional act (not to mention a move that will benefit China to the United States' detriment). Here are two examples:

Lawmakers, legal experts warn shuttering USAID is unconstitutional (The Hill)

As Epidemics Spread, Abolishing USAID Is an Illegal Disaster (Foreign Policy) NME Frigate (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro, for the last paragraph, where it mentions Elon Musk, please add "Department of Government Efficiency head". 2600:100C:A20C:1A22:199D:F42F:A60C:A9F (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Done! fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Lead relative emphasis

The lead ideally should summarize each major section of the article:

• Purposes
• Modes of assistance
• Organization
• Field missions
• Assistance projects
• History
• Budget
• Activities by region
• Controversies and criticism

Currently it fails MOS:LEADREL. fgnievinski (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Put the website usaid.gov recorded by the Wayback Machine

Please put usaid.gov under the Website section instead of state.gov Hieuchipt (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the link in the Infobox. Why do you want this change to be made? In my view it is appropriate at this time to use state.gov link since it would appear that this is the official webpage for USAID, now that the usaid.gov site has gone dark. Note that both the state.gov and an archived link to usaid.gov can be found in the External links section. FFM784 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Reminder that this is CTop

Obviously news is moving fast, obviously we can all anticipate some edits to this page, but remember not to get ahead of the news and RS.

@PaPiker please reconsider whether you want to edit war over is/was. And your edits to the short description are premature. Unless you can provide a ref, would you please self-revert for now? Just until there is official word about the agency’s status. Mikewem (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Field offices shut down?

Is it verified that all USAID field offices have been shut down and employees ordered to return to the US by 8 Feb? 152.130.15.107 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Reason for being shut down?

All this talk about the history, and all the things it has done, but I couldn't find a word about the justification for taking it down. If this site is neutral, as it claims (though I doubt), it will give a fair shake to DOGE's contention against it and clarify their side for why USAID needs to be dismantled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:480:40B0:D8E9:A5A6:3B2F:C967 (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a coalition of leftists who declared all the leftists sources as reliable and all right wing (and most centrist) sources as unreliable source.

@DividedFrame can tell you more about it 188.142.192.183 (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

What, specifically, would you like added? Please provide a reliable source. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point lmao 188.142.192.183 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I found several reliable sources explaining his motivations, but go off bud. Good luck finding someone else to help you. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of conservative sources listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. -- Beland (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia loves creating sections called "Accusations". Dispassionate intelligence and neutral unbiased perspective demand that this article include an "accusations" section that discuss the arguments against USAID especially since objective empirical evidence has now been presented as to where some of its funding has gone, rendering the original article verifiably false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:480:40B0:D8E9:A5A6:3B2F:C967 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what's been presented? And please don't say condoms to Hamas for making bombs. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no information regarding the funding of trans issues in foreign countries. 2603:8080:BE00:31F:21D1:FEA9:2B8:1D42 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I have added a sub-section under "Controversies" detailing allegations of wasteful spending by DOGE and the White House. Most specifically, I cited criticism of funding for LGBT NGOs in Serbia and EV chargers in Vietnam.

Reliable sources (including the office of a Republican member of the Foreign Affairs Committee), have confirmed most of the controversial funding for trans issues (like the "trans opera in Columbia" mentioned by the White House) were actually from the State Department, not USAID. Revangarde568 (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• allegations of wasteful spending raised by DOGE and the White House

Revangarde568 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The office of a Republican member of the FAC is not necessarily a reliable source for this anything other than the view of Republican members of the FAC, for which it is a primary source. It's obviously also a partisan source. Is there a reliable secondary source we can use to make sure we report this neutrally? BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The congressional office was moreso as a source that most of the "waste accusations" by the incumbent administration are not USAID programs but State Dept programs. I originally wanted to include that in the article but ultimately did not find that suitable. I felt a section about USAID controversies should not include State Dept controversies strenously tied to USAID. But you are right it was improper to use it as the main source. Revangarde568 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

And see also MOS:SAID re "revealed". BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems that was already corrected by someone else. I fully endorse the change in order to strike a more suited tone and comply with Wikipedia guidlines, even though there is ample proof of USAID spending for Vietnam chargers and Serbian LGBT inclusion. There were pages on USAID website talking about that Unfortunately, I could not link them because they were deleted and I was unable to access an archive. But they were there (unlike more tenous accusations like "transgender opera in Columbia" or "DEI musical in Ireland", which I purposefully did not include, even though the media is talking about them, because several sources say they were not administeted by USAID Revangarde568 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn’t use Anadolu Agency (aa.com) as a source for international politics, scroll to see its entry here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

I think it makes sense to have this section, just need a reliable source for it Mikewem (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have acted swiftly to remove the source from Anadolu Agency and replace it. Revangarde568 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"Elon Musk, the head of DOGE"

As far as I know, Musk hasn't been confirmed to the post. This should read "nominee to the"... Generationthirteen (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I tried on the DOGE talk page, but didn't get much interest. Explanation for the current version is at the bottom of my thread.

But he is not a nominee anymore [2]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/white-house-says-elon-musk-serving-special-government-employee-rcna190520 Mikewem (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it even a position that requires Senate confirmation? The Trump administration has been deliberately slippery about Musk's role. At first, he was said to be leading an extra-governmental advisory committee, but then they renamed another department, and a few days ago they said he was indeed an employee. NME Frigate (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The "Department" which was renamed as DOGE was the "US Digital Service". That was a White House office, and therefore neither its members nor leader(s) require Senate confirmation. Revangarde568 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"was" in lede

The agency continues to exist and the past tense is very premature. It's being brutally assaulted by certain actors, sure, but only the Congress has the authority to permanently shut it down. Which hasn't happened as of now. Amberkitten (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the lead section but there might be stuff like this in the body too, unfortunately I can't check it right now Amberkitten (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Only agencies that have secretaries and agencies that are not created by executive order (so FBI, CIA can be closed with onr signature of the president) need 2/3 of Congress. 2A00:1370:8184:6E1C:45BE:EB16:8644:55BC (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Is this new article about Ivanka Trump worth mentioning?

Ivanka Trump Used USAID Money for Events, Records Show - Newsweek

In 2019, Ivanka Trump, then a senior advisor in the White House during the first presidency of her father, Donald Trump, "used over $11,000 from the department in 2019 to buy video recording and reproducing equipment for a White House event." The $11,539 request to use the funds to buy "software, CDs, tapes and records" was approved by "Jenifer Healy, who was serving as USAID deputy chief of staff at the time, and the Administrator's Office."

Until the past week, this story would be too minor to mention anywhere. It wouldn't even have been reported on. In light of claims about USAID by Elon Musk and others in Donald Trump's second administration who are illegally trying to shut the agency down without Congressional approval, it seems relevant. NME Frigate (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I would 100% invite you to add it under the section "controversies and criticism". Being backed by a source, it is both appropriate and suitable given the circumstances Revangarde568 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. For some reason, I thought I didn't have that editing privilege. I added that story as well as one from ABC about both Ivanka Trump and Melania Trump having promoted USAID during Donald Trump's 2017-21 presidency.

It is rather amusing that that section that the reliable sources it cites to report on the current Trump administration's statements on the supposed flaws of USAID themselves cites to a fact sheet issued by the White House, and that fact sheet in turn cites a bunch of news articles published over the past decade about wasteful USAID spending, but none of those news sources are themselves considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. NME Frigate (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

A complaint has been filed against the Trump administration by unions representing the approximately 10,000 USAID employees losing their jobs due to his actions. It seeks "declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to a series of unconstitutional and illegal actions taken by President Donald Trump and his administration that have systematically dismantled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These actions have generated a global humanitarian crisis by abruptly halting the crucial work of USAID employees, grantees, and contractors. They have cost thousands of American jobs. And they have imperiled U.S. national security interests."

I don't see a news story yet, so it can't be cited here, but here's a link to the filing itself:

gov.uscourts.dcd.277213.1.0.pdf NME Frigate (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)