The only people pleased with the outcome are Putin and Trump. It is a disaster for Europe and will eventually allow the Baltic states to be absorbed. In some ways I agree with Os. There is no other solution , especially without American support. I don't think Putin can be appeased and Trump is either naive or stupid in believing there will be a compromise by Russia. Clearly the US had no interest in Europe and spending 5 oer cent if GDP on defence is nor acceptable for democracies. The problem for Trump is that he will not contain China and is losing influence in the Pacific. Not sure how keen Europe will be keen to assist the Americans now. I think we must consider leaving Aukus as the Europeans including ourselves have more pressing issues thanks to Trump.
Insanity … Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result Why do seemingly sane people keep replying to Os? THERE IS NO POINT
The USAID “Scandal” and the Playbook of Manufactured Outrage The dismantling of USAID isn’t about fraud. It’s not about waste. And it’s certainly not about making government more efficient. Instead, it’s a test case for a new era of governance—one where facts are optional, reality is shaped by cherry-picked narratives, and faith in a leader replaces independent sources of truth. Rather than conducting an actual audit, Musk and Trump have used a familiar tactic—manufacture a scandal, flood the space with selective outrage, and use it to justify dismantling an agency they already wanted gone. It’s an attack on facts themselves—and if it works here, it will be repeated elsewhere. --- Misinformation doesn’t have to be an outright lie to be effective. The most powerful form of disinformation is cherry-picking—taking a real event or number, stripping it of context, and reframing it for maximum outrage. Take a look at a few of the White House’s official justifications for gutting USAID: ▪️ Claim: “USAID spent $6 million on tourism in Egypt.” Reality: This funding was for education and economic development in North Sinai, not tourism. The grant was announced in 2019 during Trump’s first administration. Stripping away the date and purpose makes it sound like a recent, frivolous expenditure rather than part of an established economic aid initiative. ▪️ Claim: “USAID spent $1.5 million to promote workplace diversity in Serbia.” Reality: This was part of a broader economic initiative to increase job opportunities in Serbia—where workplace discrimination limits economic participation. The program focused on helping businesses grow by improving inclusivity—but was reframed as an ideological “waste” rather than an economic development effort. ▪️ Claim: “USAID spent $47,000 on a transgender opera in Colombia.” Reality: This was not a USAID grant at all—it was issued by the State Department, not USAID. The grant supported an arts program aimed at increasing representation in Colombia’s opera scene. By misattributing the funding to USAID and framing it solely as a “transgender opera”, the claim was designed to provoke cultural outrage rather than discuss arts funding in global diplomacy. Could an actual audit be conducted on how these funds were used? Absolutely. In a functioning government, there should always be room for debate over whether certain initiatives are priorities or whether they are effective. But that is not what is happening here. Instead of evaluating whether these programs delivered results or whether better alternatives exist, these numbers were stripped of context and framed for maximum outrage—not to improve policy, but to justify dismantling an agency outright. A real debate would analyze impact and effectiveness, not manipulate selective facts to push a predetermined conclusion. The biggest red flag? If USAID were truly corrupt, they would be showing full financial audits, not vague accusations. --- If the goal were actually to root out inefficiencies, a proper USAID audit wouldn’t be done in a day or two based on cherry-picked spending line items. Audits—even for small organizations—are lengthy, comprehensive, and detail both strengths and weaknesses. A real audit would: ▪️ Be conducted by independent agencies (GAO, OIG, CBO), qualified and experienced leaders, or objective, appointed and vettyed contracted individuals or organizations. ▪️ Use full financial forensic analysis, not cherry-picked line items. ▪️ Compare USAID to other government expenditures for context. ▪️ Provide publicly available, transparent findings. ▪️ Recommend measured reforms, not mass firings. Real audits include: ▪️ Positives and negatives—not just failures. ▪️ Strengths and weaknesses—where the agency is effective and where it isn’t. ▪️ Successes and failures—not just the failures someone wants to highlight. ▪️ Annotated findings with full transparency—each claim links back to data. This takes months, not days—because an audit can’t be done by just extracting data, running it through an algorithm (AI or otherwise), and issuing selective pronouncements. Instead, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) simply declared USAID “beyond repair” and started shutting it down—no audit needed. This isn’t about USAID—it’s about eliminating institutions. And if they can do this to USAID, they can do it to the CDC, NOAA, or any other agency that provides inconvenient facts. --- The attack on USAID is just the beginning. If this strategy works, other congrssionally created and funded agencies that provide oversight, enforce regulations, or provide objective information will be next. The same manufactured outrage playbook will be applied to: ▪️ The CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) – Criticized for interfering in free markets and overregulating financial institutions. ▪️ The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) – Framed as an obstacle to economic growth by restricting corporate and investment practices. ▪️ The IRS – Cast as a weaponized agency persecuting political enemies. ▪️ The Pentagon – Attacked over spending inefficiencies and social policies. ▪️ The Federal Reserve – Accused of economic manipulation and globalist control. ▪️ The DOJ & FBI – Portrayed as corrupt institutions waging partisan investigations. ▪️ The Department of Education – Framed as a wasteful bureaucracy pushing ideological agendas. ▪️ The EPA – Blamed for stifling business growth through overregulation. Each will be misrepresented and undermined not through comprehensive audits and evidence-based reform, but through cherry-picked data, selective outrage, and preordained conclusions that justify dismantling their authority. The irony? Real audits of these agencies would be fantastic. If the goal were truly efficiency, effectiveness, and responsible governance, independent reviews would be welcomed. A thorough, transparent audit of USAID, the CFPB, the SEC, the IRS, or the Pentagon would provide critical insights for better decision-making. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead of pursuing genuine oversight and accountability, the administration is manufacturing outrage and using it as a justification to dismantle institutions outright—not to fix them, but to eliminate their independence. --- The final step in this process isn’t just about cutting waste—it’s about removing any part of the government that isn’t directly controlled by the executive branch. ▪️ No independent oversight. ▪️ No neutral agencies providing inconvenient data. ▪️ No checks on power. This isn’t about USAID—it’s about whether any institution will be allowed to exist outside the direct control of a single leader. The next time an agency or institution is suddenly declared “too corrupt to fix,” ask yourself: ▪️ Where’s the full audit? ▪️ Why is the data missing? ▪️ Who benefits from removing this institution? When facts disappear, power takes their place. That’s what’s happening here. I copied and pasted the above from Facebook, but it all seems to make sense.
But this goes back to what I said before. By deliberately framing it as a woke lefty nonsense is actually really counter productive. It allows the decision makers wriggle room to deny. It gives permission for half truths from politicians and half lies. Now I'm not an American tax payer, but I really wouldn't care which of the departments was spending my taxes, I would however question why my taxes were spent increasing representation in Colombias opera scene or work place diversity initiatives in Serbia because quite frankly, I couldn't give a ****. I'd be most displeased if that's what I was being made, by law, to pay for (not a cool, hip and modern outlook I know) So why lie? Why are they saying it's under the banner of USAID? I'm a grown up. I can pick my own level of outrage without being shown how to think.
Oh dear, oh dear Rachel from accounts has really been caught up in a lot of sleeze: https://t.co/umR1cYrYwP Is anything Labour says true?
Why do you outsource your thinking? This is a bipartisan issue. The problem is the huge amount of government waste, yet somehow you and the left are swallowing the democrats propaganda hook , line and sinker. It’s astonishing
So, Trump, the great negotiator, has made Russia guarantees before negotiations even start, ensuring Ukraine really have nothing to negotiate with. What a charlatan.
I am not sure who is framing what as woke left nonsense. We have discussed various forms of foreign aid before, but within a UK context. The US is often voted the most hated nation on earth, and its spending on foreign aid is part of the nations aims to maintain positive influence. The USA has long seen itself as a world leader and as such spends a lot of money trying to act like one. I would be more upset, as an American, that the IS spends more money on its healthcare per person than we do, yet they have to pay a second tax - insurance - to be able to access it. I don’t see Trump doing anything to fix that…
Arse holes on twitter are claiming that all money is spent on woke lefty nonsense. Given that the US is still one of the most hated nations on earth (as is GB) I'd rather be hated and pay less tax than hated and to give them money anyway. It's not like money is being spent on bags of maize for a starving nation! I'd defy you to find many Colombians who care one bit about increasing representation in local Opera. I mean, come on. Really? You'd be happy for your taxes to be spent on that? Completely agree about health care btw
I see Rachel Reeves is vice chair of Labour Friends of Israel. I am shocked but disgusted that there is such an organisation .
This is kind of a selfish worldview, in my mind. The poor here are better off than the poor in so many places and we have a duty to try to help other nations. We have taken a lot from countries around the world, after all. But here are the fact regarding US foreign aid. You might be surprised: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-every-american-should-know-about-u-s-foreign-aid/
The organisation was founded in 1957 How is this disgusting, unless you don’t think Israel should exist?
Would you rather 50k of your taxes was spent on projects which you would locally benefit from, or would you rather that money was spent on increasing diversity in Colombia’s opera? Local Library in Spalding or ensuring Colombians can watch The marriage of figaro with a 80% gay cast? Sure start centres in Skegness or La bohème ensuring Colombians Rodolfo's casting is purely from non native communities? North Lincolnshire air ambulance or The magic flute with an all female cast to the delight of Bogota. If that makes me selfish so be it. I've said before I get why I need to pay tax and although I've always been PAYE even if I wasn't I couldn't morally use tax avoidance schemes. If that's where my money was going I'd be doing everything in my power not to pay it. (I don't see how this helps Colombia’s poor in any way shape or form either.)
I hope I am wrong, but are their discussions not around Ukraine ceding territory to Russia and committing to not being part of NATO?
How can you be friendly with a country that routinely commits genocide ? Why is not OK for Russia to invade Ukraine but our politicians turn a blind eye to mass murder by IDF.
You have decided to fixate on the tiny donation to Colombia. You can disagree with one payment. However, the USA and the UK have raped the world of its resources, particularly in the age of the multinational, and to be honest we owe these countries something back. There is international agreement that all advanced nations will donate to help poorer nations. Do we really want to be isolationists with no part in the world?
