After Killing USAID, MAGA’s Solution: Reinventing USAID, But Worse
from the sophistication-isn't-a-conspiracy dept
The recent book “Character Limit” exposes a perfect case study in destructive arrogance: Twitter was already building more sophisticated versions of everything Musk claimed he wanted. But Musk and his sycophants were so convinced of their own brilliance, and so certain everyone at Twitter was an idiot, they didn’t even bother to understand what was already in place. Instead, they gleefully tore it all down — only to later attempt rebuilding worse versions of the same features, having learned nothing from the ruins.
Now we’re seeing the same thing play out with the US government. Just weeks after illegally killing an agency (which Musk never actually understood) that successfully promoted American interests abroad for decades, the MAGA crew is suddenly discovering they need… an agency that promotes American interests abroad. And just like at Twitter, their “solution” involves rebuilding a stripped-down, flawed version that fundamentally misunderstands what made the original work.
As we recently detailed, USAID’s genius lay in how it wove together humanitarian aid with commercial interests. Every dollar spent fighting disease or supporting development didn’t just protect American health and security — it helped create new markets for US companies. And critically, it did this while maintaining recipient countries’ independence, in stark contrast to China’s Belt & Road Initiative, which deliberately creates debt traps to tie countries to the Chinese economy (and was more directly tied to infrastructure initiatives, rather than broader development goals around health and stability).
The MAGA crew’s sudden amnesia about USAID’s value is particularly striking given their own recent history. Take Marco Rubio, now Secretary of State. Just three years ago, he was one of USAID’s strongest defenders, demanding increased funding specifically to “counter the Chinese Communist Party’s expanding global influence.”
For years, Rubio forcefully argued that USAID’s budget (less than 1% of federal spending) delivered outsized returns for American interests. “I promise you,” he declared in 2017, “it is going to be a lot harder to recruit someone to anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism if the United States of America is the reason one is even alive today.” He even called out those who wanted to slash foreign aid as liars pushing false narratives about the budget.
But hey, that was three whole years ago. Ancient history!
The cognitive dissonance is reaching absurd levels. Just weeks after killing USAID, Fox News ran a segment bemoaning that America has no answer to China’s Belt & Road Initiative. Trump’s solution to this “crisis”? Apparently it’s Benjamin Black, son of hedge fund giant (and Jeffrey Epstein associate) Leon Black, who Trump is appointing to rebuild what’s left of USAID. Black’s revolutionary idea, as breathlessly reported by the NY Times? Investing in “pro-market” projects.
Here’s the punchline that makes this whole thing darkly comic: USAID was already laser-focused on market development. So focused, in fact, that some of its vocal critics have long complained it prioritized commercial interests over pure humanitarian aid. But USAID understood something Black and his MAGA compatriots don’t: creating sustainable markets requires playing the long game through stability, health, and development.
Black’s grand vision? Moving USAID’s resources to Trump’s pet project from his first term, the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). His qualification for this role? A Substack essay co-written with Peter Thiel protégé Joe Lonsdale arguing that foreign aid should be… wait for it… market-driven.
It’s USAID all over again, just stripped of the sophistication, expertise, and strategic thinking that made it effective. Another case of destroying something complex to rebuild a worse version that fits on a bumper sticker.
In other words, here are the basics of Black’s revolutionary proposal, which I swear I am not making up:
- Take USAID’s $44 billion budget
- Give it to the DFC for “market-oriented investments”
- ???
- Profit! (No, literally — the proposal promises “returns that would fund future programs”)
The whole thing reads like someone discovered USAID’s actual mission statement, crossed out the sophisticated parts about development and stability, and added “but make it more Finance Bro.” It would be funny if it weren’t so predictable.
And while USAID had its critics on both the left (for being too market-focused) and right (for being “wasteful”), it had evolved sophisticated mechanisms to balance these concerns. The agency’s programs underwent rigorous evaluation and adapted over decades. The DFC, by contrast, largely operates as a standard investment vehicle without this institutional knowledge — it’s like replacing a surgeon with someone who’s played “Operation” once.
Just like Musk “discovering” features Twitter already had, MAGA is now “inventing” development strategies that USAID spent decades refining by actually understanding the realities and nuances of the larger world.
The parallels here are almost too perfect. Just as Musk replaced Twitter’s verification system — which created genuine value through carefully managed trust — with a simplistic “pay for checkmark” scheme, MAGA wants to replace USAID’s sophisticated development strategy with a crude, short-term, “invest for returns” approach. Both changes promise quick, measurable wins while destroying the underlying long-term value and strategic importance that took years to build.
This is the MAGA/Musk playbook in action: take a complex system you don’t understand, declare it broken because you can’t grasp its nuances, tear it down while claiming you’ll build something better, then deliver a simplified version that completely misses the point. Whether it’s Twitter’s trust systems or USAID’s market development strategy, these weren’t just programs — they were calibrated ecosystems built on years of learning and refinement, with longer term goals in mind.
But here’s what makes this pattern truly dangerous: it’s not just ignorance, it’s aggressive ignorance. The Musk/MAGA worldview doesn’t just fail to understand complexity — it treats complexity itself as evidence of incompetence or corruption. They’re not just incapable of seeing the sophistication in these systems; they’re ideologically opposed to admitting such sophistication could exist.
Filed Under: ben black, development, dfc, elon musk, foreign aid, usaid
Companies: twitter, x
Comments on “After Killing USAID, MAGA’s Solution: Reinventing USAID, But Worse”
TFW you reinvent the wheel but you make it square.
Re:
A square as 4 sides, a circle only one.
So the square is a better circle.
Re: Re:
More sides on a single shape, that’s efficiency!
I know one shouldn’t attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, but given their track record the past six weeks, I’m fairly certain it isn’t the case that they can’t grasp the nuances; they actively choose not to.
All so they can score cheap political points by coming up with “a totally better version of USAID, bro!”.
Re:
If i want to confront a musk-bro, i’ll assume malice. Because assuming ignorance traps me in a cycle of explaining things to trolls acting in bad faith, and never addresses the harm they are doing.
When talking generically online, i’ll assume ignorance unless i have a reason to make a malice arguement. Because there is no better insult than just assuming their 5-d chess moves are the result of childish flailing. i’ll leave intent to a prosecutor.
Re: Re:
IRL, online, doesn’t matter. The GOP has been the party of bigots and religious nuts since Nixon consolidated the old Confederacy. It’s been the party of slashing public services while giving tax cuts to the wealthy since Reagan.
I’ve long been done suffering these fools in my personal life. Disowned 3/4 of my family years ago. Cut out every “friend” I made growing up decades ago in Trump country.
And it’s better. Smaller circle, closer circle. Never again in my life will I knowingly break bread with a conservative. My bread is for sharing with decent people.
Re:
Usually the simplest explanation for Elon Musk’s actions is “he’s a fucking idiot.”
But in the case of a South African apartheid billionaire having a grudge against USAID, I can think of a simpler one.
Re:
When dealing with a person/group/cult where cruelty isn’t an unintentional side-effect but one of it not the primary goals you’ll rarely go wrong assuming malice.
Conservatives prove they only have one idea, yet again, by trying to privatise american soft power. The ability to create america friendly banana republics is being sacrificed to make America the biggest banana republic of all.
Re:
Conservatives do not build anything. Conservatives co-opt, and conservatives destroy.
Re: 'The Rhetoric of Reaction'
Conservatives have three ideas: perversity, futility and jeopardy.
Economist Albert Hirschman published “The Rhetoric of Reaction” in 1991 to illustrate that conservatives’ arguments against change fall along three themes: perversity (by making things better, you make things worse), futility (things are the way they are because they must be, and whoever or whatever can’t be helped shouldn’t be helped) and jeopardy (life is not without trade-offs and any progress made sacrifices a previous accomplishment).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Money For Nothing
I kind of doubt that we will ever find someone who becomes an anti-American terrorist because USAID didn’t spend $20 million on an Iraqi version of sesame street.
The real purpose of USAID was to shovel U.S. tax dollars into corporations in exchange for nothing. DOGE hit the cronies right where it counts: in the wallet.
Re:
Nothing you value.
I assume you wouldn’t care if your entire family got murdered though. You seem to not value anything other than your own self interest. I bet you want to sell your daughter to the tate brothers.
Re:
Try reading, Koward. The article you’re commenting on actively explains that the USAID got returns and then some on what they gave.
So the people who received payments from the government are cronies, but THE RICHEST GUY IN THE WORLD RUNNING IT is a-okay.
My god, rocks are smarter than you are.
Re:
I can bet you’ll find people who will harbor anti-American sentiment because of Musk and Trump cancelling food aid to impoverished children, though.
And if you believe that, you must believe that it will be the purpose of the “rebuilt” USAID. Or will you not oppose the “new” USAID because it’s being run by shithead techbros who worship Musk like he’s God?
Re:
How does anyone this stupid remember to breathe on a regular basis?
Re:
How much money is Elon receiving from the government again?
Re: Re:
A better question is how much money is Elon losing for his firms. The big problem of Elmo getting up his own ass about his performative genius is that a significant portion of his companies’ market caps are tied to Elmo’s personal charm.
Tesla would be a niche carmaker were it not for Elon Musk. Tesla is positioned as the Apple of cars, largely because the carmaker’s identity and Musk’s identity are intertwined. Musk didn’t invent the electric vehicle, but he did take over Tesla with the tech money he made and his superficial charm.
Tesla’s sales are plummeting all over the world, and Tesla drivers are now finding that they practically can’t give their cars away because the used-car values have fallen hard. Ironically, Tesla is now becoming a starter EV because used ones are comparatively affordable right now.
The $44 billion Nazi bar remodel of Twitter, by some estimates, destroyed 80% of Twitter’s value. That is assuming there’s even an $8 billion buyer who wants XTwitter knowing that the brand and its community is so utterly toxic. Twitter has also created splash damage for social media as a whole, devaluing Facebook, Snap and TikTok as well. Elmo’s purchase of Twitter might have been a tipping point — the disengagement since 2022 was large enough that it pulled down engagement for social media as a whole.
There are also long-term trends that don’t look good. Much of the disengagement is coming from the youngest users. The <29 demographic is either not engaging in the first place, dialing down their usage, or deactivating their accounts.
Social media is also plagued with platform decay. Most social media accounts aren’t platform-exclusive, and individual users are brands in the same way literal brands are brands. A lot of content that isn’t spam or AI slop is turning social media into what Tom Eastman quipped as five giant websites filled with screenshots of the other four.
Circling back to Elmo, though, what we really should worry about is if the U.S. government ends up looking like Tesla or X. The world won’t end if Tesla or X are shut down — after all, we will still be able to drive and communicate.
If the DOGE kludge wrecks the U.S. government’s electronics payment system, we’re not going to be able to work or even keep the lights on or the water flowing.
We’re looking at wheelbarrows of cryptocurrency to buy a loaf of bread.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, that’s easy to fix: make wheelbarrows legal tender.
Re: Re: Re:2
What’s our wheelbarrow to eggs exchange rate today?
Re: Re: Re:
The Trump regime is looking at funneling as much money as possible to Elon with absurd no big contracts for armoured Teslas and contracts being broken with companies like Verizon to try and hand the money straight to Starlink for an inferior service. He will loot the US government to such a degree that he won’t need to sell many Teslas to the public to maintain his wealth, his companies will be buried into the government like a tick to such a degree military contractors would wince at the level of corruption.
Re:
What about your child starving because Elon decided to sit on food that was already purchased by USAID? Do you think that might radicalize some people against the US?
Re:
Jesus Kdawg you know can’t fit the whole jack-boot in your mouth all at once!
Re:
“The real purpose of [the Trump Administration] was to shovel U.S. tax dollars into [Trump’s, Musk’s, and their friends’] corporations in exchange for nothing.”
FTFY
If you think the wealthy people now running the government like a garage startup with venture capital investments to burn are not going to make sure their undivested interests benefit the most from all the capricious, arrogant actions and are taking these actions rather out of the kindness of their hearts or any actual interest in free speech or government efficiency or opposition to corruption, then I have several cults and MLM schemes I’d suggest but you’re likely already a member of them.
Philosophical consistency is so last-century
Look man, sticking with your principles is a terrible way to pry favors out of maniac.
I mean, Liberation isn’t all that wrong. I pointed out on the article about USAID and AI that they gave away the game about some of the shit they wanted from developing countries, which very much is an undercutting of the voices and votes of the citizens living there.
If it was just plain sending aid where it was needed, with none of the attempts to override the voices and votes of the people in those countries, then I’d be fine with it. Basically the opposite of what Musk & Co. are doing. But a return to the status-quo of USAID would mean a return to attempts to upend regulations and laws and more in countries where the citizens have those regulations and laws for reasons.
If we ever manage to come back from this as a country, we are going to have to grapple with the fact that USAID did have colonialist tendencies and goals.
That's an overly kind way to describe USAID
I want to make things clear: I don’t support what Trump is doing right now; it’s deeply stupid. But I feel like this article is a slightly too whitewashed description of USAID.
Saying that USAID is too ‘market-driven’ is quite an understatement compared to the critics that are levied against it: it was a tool used by the USA to politically manipulate many foreign governments in very direct ways in order to fuel the interests of US capital, with very close ties to the CIA, but using a slightly more palatable image.
To be clear, when USAID helps Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, that’s mostly good. But when all help to Yemen is mysteriously interrupted when they vote nay in a UN vote to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, that’s very shady. When USAID creates and funds a new social media site (ZunZuneo) to covertly try to influence Cuban politics, even more so. When USAID gives funding to opposition politicians in order to destabilize countries in Latin America and ensure US-friendly regimes, it is downright criminal. All of these facts are turned up by a quick Google search, and are but a sampler of what USAID did.
USAID did good things too, but let’s not pat ourselves on the back saying how nice they were now that they’re gone. They were doing, and always did, really wretched things. Trump simply dropped the pretence. And I believe we can say USAID was bad without saying Trump is any better.
Usaid would fund projects to fund emergency health care build up economys that would be stable and also expand trust in America in third world countries countrys that can be vunerable to terrorist groups short term loans from china with usaid gone America and the world is less safe it also provided funds to stop the spread of disease around the world it’s sad that it’s gone and the people it employed will have to go to other employers
No need to keep breaking into a bank if you steal it's ownership
It’s USAID all over again, just stripped of the sophistication, expertise, and strategic thinking that made it effective. Another case of destroying something complex to rebuild a worse version that fits on a bumper sticker.
That’s one way to put it I suppose, I’d lean more towards ‘Destroy the previous program where the money was actually being tracked and was going to outside groups, and then replace it with one where the accounting is likely to be a lot ‘looser’, with a focus on profit for those running it first and foremost.
And how much of the USAID money
Actually went to US companies?
Like most of the money to Ukraine went to US weapons manufacturers.
Re:
I don’t know if in an say most of USAID money went to US companies, but the cars that had their delivery contracts canceled when I SAID died sure squealed.
Re:
I mean, yes?
If industry within Ukraine were capable of creating those weapons, they wouldn’t have any use for US military aid. Same is true for USAID projects.
That’s fundamentally what “foreign aid” is, it’s insertion of foreign industrial production into locales which cannot produce those things themselves. That the foreign production is done in the same nation as is providing that aid is more or less a given.
While it technically could be performed elsewhere and imported by the giver, in practice countries which cannot produce the kinds of products which are common in foreign aid packages are nearly universally recipients of aid, rather than givers of aid.
Re: Re:
And how much US military aid will Ukraine actually get when European countries have collectively allocated just over two thirds more than the US in the way of military aid, as well as providing far more (both already provided and allocated) in the way of financial and humanitarian aid?* Remember, no one is more short-sighted than the MAGAt that can’t see further than Trump’s lies.
*Source
Re:
Did you think the purpose was just to funnel money into US companies? We could do that more efficiently by…electing a huckster billionaire who will bring in his unelected friends to loot the place while setting it on fire.
USAID helped create stable foreign markets for US goods, if you want to look at it from a purely capitalist mindset. You can’t sell a product to a poor person who’s dying from diseases you know how to treat and prevent.
These are the same people that think evolution is fake news because of “irreducible complexity”, so yeah, I buy it.
In the case of USAID, it’s probably not so much that Musk believes he can do something better – it’s that he sees an opportunity to take money from it.
Twitter was something he was forced into because he was an idiot who pushed his luck too far in the legal system and had to make good on an agreement. USAID is his capitalist wet dream of making money off of literally everything, no matter how damaging it is for everyone else.
But we’re never going to be ready to have any serious critique of the systems that made Musk, so let’s just keep telling each other, “Wow that’s horrible. Such a shame” because that’s all anyone is capable of.