Bureaucracy First
Democratic politicians' protest yesterday was laughably out of touch
Congressional Democrats on Monday held their first major protest since Donald Trump’s inauguration, gathering in front of USAID’s sleek Washington headquarters. Feeling like Occupy Wall Street reimagined by McKinsey consultants, the cream of the Democratic Party chose to make their stand on behalf of a government bureaucracy dedicated to foreign aid and nation building — the very antithesis of “America First.”
Trump of course ran and won on this America First message of focusing on the domestic U.S. instead of overseas. That rhetoric was even present in the Trump administration announcement yesterday that it was reviewing USAID’s foreign assistance to “ensure it is in alignment with an America First agenda” and to “protect the American people’s interests.” As a result the headquarters building was shut down for the day, barring employees from entering, which precipitated the demonstration.
The protest was no fringe event, with several prominent members of Congress speaking at it. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, fired off a distorted list of USAID missions, all of which are hardly the agency’s focus and all of which take place thousands of miles away:
USAID "supports freedom fighters everywhere in this world,"
"USAID chases China around the world," and
"USAID fights terrorist groups all across this world."
Keeping with the focus on faraway lands, Senator Chris Van Hollen called the closure of USAID “an absolute gift to our adversaries, to Russia, to China, to Iran and others.” He went on to describe the praise Elon Musk had won from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Tesla’s opening of a store in a province of China I do not know how to spell, and how “I have no reason to think that Elon won’t jump like a circus monkey when Xi Jinping calls in the hour of need.” Absent from his remarks was how any of this affects ordinary Americans.
Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii at least tried to make a case for how any of this benefits the U.S. at home, arguing that “a stable world means a stable America.” But can anyone look at the world today and conclude it’s stable?
Having spent the past week talking to hundreds of federal employees navigating the fallout of President Trump’s war on government, I sympathize with the working class among them. The Trump administration is cynically trying to create a Saw-style prisoner’s dilemma in which low-level workers are pressured to think they must choose between resigning their jobs now or getting laid off later. That’s gross. But the Democratic officials leading Monday’s protest chose to align themselves not with workers but with a very specific type of federal worker: the Washington bureaucrat.
It’s as if the Democratic Party’s response to Trump’s “America First” slogan is “Bureaucracy First.”
You see this tendency again and again in Democratic messaging (and major media coverage) since Trump’s election, focusing on the plight of the poor FBI senior executives, four star generals, former CIA Directors and the like — virtually all of whom have or will go on to make six, seven or even eight figures in the private sector based on the skills and network they picked up in federal service. On our dime. Imagine what this sounds like to any ordinary person.
At the protest, one member of Congress after another focused on the illegality of what Trump was doing, opposing it on process instead of principle. It’s not like if it was legal, they would suddenly be OK with it! So why not address the substance: what USAID is, what it does, and how that helps Americans.
Schatz’s point that a stable world means a stable America is basically true but USAID as presently constituted — with a larger share of its resources going to “governance” than humanitarian programs, as the Congressional Research Service found in a report this month — is not accomplishing this.
Take Afghanistan for instance. An Inspector General report issued this week points out that the United States has spent nearly $3.71 billion on the country since the Biden administration withdrawal in 2021, a considerable sum administered almost exclusively by USAID.
The IG found that U.S. assistance “has not dissuaded the Taliban from taking U.S. citizens hostage, dismantling the rights of women and girls, censoring the media, allowing the country to become a terrorist safe haven, and targeting former Afghan government officials.”
When the IG asked the State Department whether such funding had done anything to improve the human rights situation, the Department said simply that “we use every opportunity to press the Taliban on our human rights concerns.” How compelling!
Instead of debating any of this, the Democratic leaders at yesterday’s protest busied themselves with process questions no one outside of Washington could possibly care about.
"Elon, if you want to run AID, get nominated by Trump, go to the Senate, and good luck in getting confirmed!” said Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, the 74 year old top Democrat in charge of oversight.
What do we want? Adherence to protocol! When do we want it? As soon as actionable!
Setting aside the near certainty that Musk would be confirmed (even Hegseth was!) what does this have to do with whether or not USAID should be protected, or USAID’s functions preserved, or reformed? And where is any expression of solidarity with the workers, those who actually do the work and toil under whoever the big brains (and egos) are who take on the leadership positions, acting like they are saving the world — that is, until they score the big consulting job at McKinsey and company?
— Edited by William M. Arkin
Ken love like 99% of your takes but I think this is kind of a mid one. Sure USAID is soft power of the American Empire and wildly ineffective. But it’s kind of beside the point. Trump violating laws blatantly to reorganize the federal government is the point, maybe he’s starting with a dumb agency, but asserting illegal control over agencies without resistance is the real problem. At least these dems were doing something!!
The Democratic party can fire all of their "consultants" and instead just subscribe to your newsletter. They'll be smarter, more strategic, and save a ton of money.