Author: Warren Coats

I specialize in advising central banks on monetary policy and the development of the capacity to formulate and implement monetary policy.  I joined the International Monetary Fund in 1975 from which I retired in 2003 as Assistant Director of the Monetary and Financial Systems Department. While at the IMF I led or participated in missions to the central banks of over twenty countries (including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgystan, Moldova, Serbia, Turkey, West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Zimbabwe) and was seconded as a visiting economist to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1979-80), and to the World Bank's World Development Report team in 1989.  After retirement from the IMF I was a member of the Board of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority from 2003-10 and of the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review from 2010-2017.  Prior to joining the IMF I was Assistant Prof of Economics at UVa from 1970-75.  I am currently a fellow of Johns Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.  In March 2019 Central Banking Journal awarded me for my “Outstanding Contribution for Capacity Building.”  My recent books are One Currency for Bosnia: Creating the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina; My Travels in the Former Soviet Union; My Travels to Afghanistan; My Travels to Jerusalem; and My Travels to Baghdad. I have a BA in Economics from the UC Berkeley and a PhD in Economics from the University of Chicago. My dissertation committee was chaired by Milton Friedman and included Robert J. Gordon. I live in National Landing Va 22202

Trump’s Chainsaw

I assume that I approve of many of Trump’s cuts or closers. But how can I know? His executive orders do not include or are not preceded by a discussion of the issues involved and the pros and cons of alternatives, as is customary in free societies.  As our government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, it is essential that “the people” debate the desirability of polices and their adoption. In the end they need to be accepted by us as desirable or at least OK. My goal is a federal government limited to powers granted in our constitution, delivering only those services that are wanted and doing so as well and efficiently as possible.

But Trump takes a different approach.  Lindsey Halligantold Trump that the Smithsonian needs to remove “improper ideology”. He’s ordered her to do it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2025/04/21/lindsey-halligan-smithsonian-executive-order/.

Of course we want our museums to reflect our history accurately. But the many controversies about historical facts and their implications have been publicly and transparently debated by historians for decades. It is quite proper to review such representations. Trump’s executive order stated that Halligan “will consult with Vice President JD Vance to ‘remove improper ideology’ from Smithsonian properties.”

The first question is: What is improper ideology, exactly?

The second: Who is Lindsey Halligan, Esq.? (Washington Post above)

The established process of review, appropriate to a free society, has been replaced by a top-down order typical of autocracies.

The point here is that the manner and process of review and reform appropriate to a free society is discarded in the top-down orders of an autocrat.

Some of Trump’s orders reveal enough to know that I oppose them. Trumps tariff proposals reveal a lack of understanding of trade, quite aside from the rules established by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Trump condemns countries with trade surpluses with the US. These are irrelevant—as it is the US trade deficit with the rest of the world that matters—if anything. My trade deficit with Safeway is irrelevant.

Not only is Trump’s reciprocal tariff calculation laughable for its many errors, but other policies directly counter the presumed purpose of his tariffs (though who really knows what that is). His unlawful deportation attempts and cancelling student visa has produced a sharp fall in foreign visits to the US (foreign students studying here has many other benefits for the US as well). These are US exports, generating the money needed to pay for our imports. Why would he do this? This was later reversed, and the student visa reestablished. Or doesn’t he even understand what he is doing? His targeting for deportation those critical of him or Israel is a frightening attack on our First Amendment rights.

His tariff threats, on again, off again, actually seem unrelated to trade objectives. They seem to be bargaining chips for other objectives, whatever those might be. Their unpredictability itself is inflecting damage to our trade and investments. It is a very different (autocratic) approach to trade agreements than provided by the WTO.

Trump’s bargaining style re tariffs may well produce good results six months or a year down the line. But the cost has been the alienation and isolation from our traditional allies (not in our interest), and economic damage in the interim. More alarming it has strengthened China’s world leadership, driving many into closer alliance with it. The proper question is whether his approach or the traditional working though the WTO would have produced better results.

Education, whether in schools or the public square, is vital in free societies. Closing the Wilson Center was a big mistake in my view. I attended many very informative presentations there, often with Abdul Fitrat, former governor of the central bank of Afghanistan (DAB). But most of our think tanks, also presenting excellent and important seminars, are private. Trump wants to dictate what schools teach and what parents must allow or can opt out of for their children. His demands are being challenged in court. What the state can require, and parents can choose, is a challenging issue. Our traditional and more effective approach to its resolution is via public debate—not executive order.

Our cultural scene (opera, ballet, theater, etc.) is an important aspect of a flourishing society. It is quite proper to debate the extent to which our government should help finance it, but not its importance for a healthy, flourishing society. From the settlement of hunter-gatherers into tribes, such culturally binding activities have flourished. I recently watched a very painful film “A Day in the Life” of a woman (former violin player) working seven days a week to remove the rubble left in Dresden after WWII. Anyone contemplating war should examine what was left after previous wars before starting a new one. After the war, Dresden was occupied by the USSR. Interestingly the Russians set up theaters and concert halls to display the richness of Russian culture.

In the US our cultural events are largely financed by the private sector. The Kennedy Center is a federal building and the only U.S. national cultural center. The federal government covers facility operations, maintenance, security, and capital improvements, as the Center is a federal building and national memorial. About 20% of its annual operating budget is paid by the government. The government is not allowed to fund any of its performance activities and costs. Though he has never set foot in the Kennedy Center, Trump replaced its board with his friends and made himself chairman. ???

I strongly opposed Trump’s shut down of USAID, for example. https://wcoats.blog/?s=usaid. I worked for USAID in Iraq and with it in Afghanistan and other post-conflict counties. Their role was vital. The closing of USAID harms American interest.

Let me add one more example of a USAID activity. Its support of the G-17 in Serbia provides one of many examples. In the late 1990s an IMF collogue from Serbia (former Yugoslavia) pulled me aside to explain the group of center-right, free-market economists from Serbia that he was part of—they called themselves the G-17. He explained that the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID helped organize and fund seminars at which G-17 members could discuss the policies they wanted to support and how to achieve them.

“During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, [Yugoslavia’s President Slobodan] Milošević was charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes connected to the Bosnian War, Croatian War of Independence and Kosovo War. After resigning from the Yugoslav presidency in 2000 amidst demonstrations against the disputed presidential election, Milošević was arrested by Yugoslav federal authorities in March 2001 on suspicion of corruption, abuse of power, and embezzlement.] The initial investigation faltered, and he was extradited to the ICTY to stand trial for war crimes.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87.

In the turmoil following Milošević’s replacement, Jimmy Barton (Chief National Bank Examiner of the United States, Retired) and I entered Belgrade on 9/10/2001 (I think—I am no longer sure of the date) to singing and dancing in the streets. As we met with the new government officials, they often gave us their G-17 card with the apology that they had not had time to get new official cards. Thank you EFD and USAID.

Trump also claimed to shut down the Millenium Challenge Corporation, the best foreign aid program we have ever had. He has withdrawn from several international organizations and agreements, and angered our friends and allies, further isolating the US. These are not in American interests.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised no more wars. In his first 100 days in office, he threatened to invade Panama and Greenland and to annex Canada. He has started bombing Yemen without Congressional authorization. He continues to support and help finance Israel’s wars in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria. He has withdrawn the US from many international organizations and agreements. We are increasingly isolated with fewer and fewer friends. The US voice in the world no longer carries its earlier weight—all of which has made China stronger and more influential.

To repeat, the longer-run outcome of all this may well be good for us all. There is no knowing that at this point. But the real question is whether good results achieved in this way are better than if achieved via public debate and normal diplomacy?

The courts are increasingly challenging Trump’s disregard for law and due process. What I want to emphasis is that Trump’s autocratic actions via executive orders is very different from our usual public debate over policy seeking as much public understanding and common ground as possible. Such public debate is important for what a policy (or goal of an agency) should be. The internal efficiency with which that policy is implemented is a separate issue and something that a DOGE might well help achieve.

In a letter to U of Chicago alumni, its President Paul Alivisatos stated “As the broader higher education compact is reordered, we should not fear change for its own sake. There is reform to be had—and great opportunity to improve and to achieve more. Yet, how a period of reform unfolds can also cause enormous damage; federal and political overreach and intervention without regard to due process produces profound damage…. We have important interests at stake at this moment, as well as a set of obligations that we must and will honor.”

Trump’s executive order dictates are not an appropriate approach to reforming the scope of government.

Econ 101: How much should we tax the rich?

Should the wealthy pay more taxes than the rest of us? Of course, no one disagrees with that. But how much more? Based on 2022 tax year, the latest available, the top 10% of income earners (those with adjusted gross income above $178,661) paid 72% of the total of $2.1 trillion taxes collected. Is that too much or too little or about right. The bottom 50% of income earners (less than AGI of $50,339) paid 3.0%. What is a “fair” distribution of the tax burden and/or an economically efficient distribution? Corporate income taxes raised $0.42 trillion that year and should really be abolished in our globally trading world.

I have written earlier (many times actually) that I support abolishing all income taxes (personal and corporate) and relying fully on consumption taxation. While it can be challenging to determine where things are produced, there is no question about where we consume them. But while waiting for that miracle to happen, how much more should higher income people pay in taxes than lower income people?

Fair Tax Act of 2023
Replacing Social Security with a Universal Basic Income

My sense of fairness (and economists norm for tax neutrality) says that the tax rate should be the same for everyone. In other words, if your income is twice mine, you should pay twice the tax. If all income taxes and welfare payments were replace with a Universal Basic Income for all and flat consumption tax (VAT) the result would be mildly progressive tax rates on income.

A note on Social Security: it is not a saving plan in which what you saved is there to pay out to you when you retire. https://wcoats.blog/?s=social+security

Ukraine Russian Peace Treaty

I am a monetary, not a foreign policy, expert. But after spending good bits of the last two decades in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, South Sudan and Israel/WBGS I have some questions:

  1. Why did we expand NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
  2. Why didn’t we discuss Putin’s Dec 2021demands to avoid Russia invading Ukraine? https://wcoats.blog/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-nato/
  3. When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 24, 2022, why didn’t we give Ukraine all the military equipment they wanted?
  4. When Russia and Ukraine were ready to sign a peace agreement negotiated in Turkey in March 2022, why did UK PM Boris Johnson tell Ukraine President Zelenskyy not to sign?
  5. Why do Americans, and especially Congressmen, tolerate President Trump’s threats to invade Panama, Greenland, Mexico and expel all Palestinians from their homes in Gaza and break so many American laws?

DEI—a nuanced assessment

DEI — “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs or policies are efforts to promote fairness and full participation of people who have been historically underrepresented or subjected to discrimination. The normal standard of fairness when employing workers is that they are hired (or admitted to college) on the basis of merit—who best satisfied to the requirements for the job. This is what taxpayers who want the best results from their tax dollars, want as well.

Many universities set aside the admission of the best qualified students to reflect the fact that may blacks who might have greater potential than their past performance test score indicated because of racial discrimination should be given preferential treatment. But these “affirmative action” programs where struct down by the Supreme Courts 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and its companion case against the University of North Carolina, which effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

To make room for more blacks, Harvard had raised the bar and thus discriminated against Asian applicants with higher scores. It is appropriate that the standards of equal treatment and merit should be observed for government jobs and public universities.

But private firms and colleges should be able to hire or admit whoever they want. Both firms and colleges may well want the social benefits from greater diversity. Not only can it make the workplace more interesting but the broadened understanding of different racial and religious groups generates greater social harmony as well.

I don’t know what DEI programs generally did or aimed for and am quite willing to believe that they wasted human resources. However, that is quite different from the desirability of properly educating our children about different races and cultures and the history of slavery and harms of racial discrimination. Along with civics, such instruction belongs in elementary school curriculums. Just as the enlightened treatment of gays, blacks, Muslims and other groups in movies and TV shows has led the way toward better understanding, exposure and education are important for building a better and more accepting society.

The government should not interfere in the choices of private firms and university about the composition of their work forces and student bodies.

Econ 101: On-Shoring

What would be the consequences of on-shoring the production of all of our military needs? We would gain supply resilience in exchange for being poorer.

If the US makes everything it needs at home rather than buying it at lower cost abroad, it will reduce the risk of supply interruptions. The risks of domestic interruptions from natural disasters or labor strife are much smaller than the risk of foreign suppliers cutting us off for one reason or another.

But like insurance more generally this increase in resilience does not come free. Moving the capital and labor from what it was producing before to produce what we used to buy abroad means it moves from more productive to less productive activities. Our overall income will be lower.

This is the basic story of specialization in the production of our comparative advantage and trade for the rest versus self-sufficiency I have written about so many times before. Both are valuable—resilience and income. The US and the rest of the world have grown wealthier at a dramatic pace over the last several centuries because of the growth in trade from neighbors to the rest of the world following millennia of no growth. Where do you want to be in this trade off and who do you want to make that decision for you?

US Crypto Reserve

The establishment by the Federal government of a fund to invest in crypto assets is a terrible idea. First the US has no surpluses to invest. It would need to borrow the money to invest. While the fund might be stocked to some extend with confiscated bitcoin and other digital assets “The use of seized cryptocurrencies, however, could run into roadblocks as these assets often go back to the victims of financial crimes”  “The Hill”   Second it is a terrible precedent for the government to support and manipulate the private market for private assets. Third crypto assets yield no benefit to the American economy. They do not represent or fund investments in productive capital in our economy. They are simply a toy for those who like to gamble.

Crypto assets should not be confused with technical improvements in payment technology (improvements in the speed, efficiency, and/or cost of making payments with “real” money). Such improvements are welcomed.

Trump posted to Truth Social that: “A U.S. Crypto Reserve will elevate this critical industry after years of corrupt attacks by the Biden Administration, which is why my Executive Order on Digital Assets directed the Presidential Working Group to move forward on a Crypto Strategic Reserve that includes XRP, SOL, and ADA.” Trump had previously dismissed crypto as a scam. “The Hill–Trump announces US crypto reserve”

English

Until now, the US has not had an official language, though over 30 states have made English their official language. Yesterday Trump sighed an executive order that changed that. In many ways this seems a strange issue. Of course English is our language. It is what we speak to strangers and friends (unless you are Mexican or Polish or something). It is what street and highway signs use. It is what newspapers and magazines use (except for the Spanish, French, etc. papers).

It makes sense for it to be the official language in which laws and other official documents are stated. But I have always had somewhat mixed feelings about the issue. While of course it’s English, I always thought it was rather nice and in keeping with our individualist leanings that it was the common language because it is what people chose to use rather than because it was officially proclaimed. But no big deal.

Econ 101: Budget Cuts

What criteria should guild when to cut some program’s budget? We must first get beyond the fact the any cut will result in having less of something. If it is inefficiency or corruption that we give up—good riddance. But usually, it will be something that has some value. That does not necessarily mean that the cut should not be made.

Consider this example from my in-tray today:

“The Trump administration has made drastic cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that threaten to impact weather forecasting and other key services provided by the agency. 

In the wake of the wave of dismissals this week, lawmakers and former officials raised concerns about potential damage to services ranging from extreme weather responses to efforts to prevent objects from colliding in space.” “The Hill: Energy – Environment – NOAA cuts”

What should be considered when making such a decision is what other services were prevented by directing these resources to NOAA activities rather than alternative uses. Even if the government just increases it overall budget, the added taxes or borrowing will have alternative uses.

You will immediately understand the issue when you consider your own household budget. Your income is limited (unless you give up some leisure to work more hours). You might gain some pleasure spending more on X, but you can only do so by giving up some Y. If you benefit more from the extra X than you lose giving up Y, then you should do it. It passes the cost/benefit test of maximizing the benefit of your given income.  

In short, the fact that cutting the budget of some agency will cut some of its services is an incomplete argument for not cutting because if fails to take account of the rest of the cost/benefit assessment of the resulting reallocation of resources.

Such budget decisions are generally debated in Congress as it approves the government’s budget. It’s an imperfect process, like most of life, but it allows all views and pros and cons to be heard and considered. A body like Musk’s DOGE might be appropriate for evaluating the efficiency with which services are performed (perhaps proposing better information processing systems) and detecting corruption, but not for evaluating the desirability of such services themselves.

Berkeley in the 1960s

Before continuing with some of my recollections from U of Berkeley during the Free Speech Movement period, please read this penetrating article by Anatol Lieven:  “The mask of imperialism-Anatol Lieven”

In it he mentions Hans J Morgenthau, a great realist thinker of the last century. I listened to many, many speeches during my last year at Berkeley 1964-5 but very, very few that resonated with me and Morgenthau was one. The other two were Milton Friedman and Edward Teller, the so-called father of the H bomb.  

Edward Teller was a professor at Berkeley and after his speech I visited with him in his home near the campus. He explained why he had opposed dropping Atomic bombs on Japan. It was a fascinating day.

When I listened to Friedman, I vowed that I would die if I wasn’t able to study under him at the U of Chicago. I am still here so fortunately I did get my Ph.D. in economics from Chicago with Friedman as chairman of my dissertation committee. It transformed my life.

The most amusing recollection in my view was listening to Morgenthau. At the end of his fascinating speech, I was full of questions. If only, I said to myself, I could be in the room with him for an hour and ask them. A few years later as a grad student at Chicago I stepped into the elevator on my way to Friedman’s office and there, all alone, stood Hans J. Morgenthau. I couldn’t think of a single question and rode up to the 4th floor in silence.

If you would like to read more recollections of my—I must say—very interesting life, buy my autobiography.  “Life of Warren C. – From the River to the Sea-All Should by Free”

USAID

“When Marco Rubio testified during his confirmation to become Secretary of State, he said that one of the things that frustrated him the most about the U.S. Agency for International Development was that it didn’t ‘brag’ enough to show other countries ‘what the United States is doing to help their societies.’

“The comment followed years of praise from Rubio for the billions of dollars in lifesaving aid that USAID distributed overseas to boost America’s image and counter the influence of rivals such as China.”  “Washington Post: Marco Rubio on USAID”

From my own experience, I agree with Rubio. After retiring from the International Monetary Fund in 2003, I had a contract from USAID from May 2004  – Sept 2005 to help the Central Bank of Iraq establish financial markets important for monetary policy as well as its capacity to formulate and implement monetary policy. Under this contract I reported to and was supervised by the US Treasury. I have also worked closely with USAID banking supervision contractors (BearingPoint and Deloitte) in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and South Sudan, all post conflict countries. They did an outstanding job, and I am sure that I was well worth the money I earned as well.

Quite aside from the insanity of suspending payments and projects in midair, wasting millions of dollars (and lives) in the process, the proper question of our government is whether these projects (or which of these projects) serve American interests and do so more effectively than would alternative uses of the same money. “As Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said, ‘Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?’” “State Department: Implementing the president’s executive order on reevaluating and realigning United States foreign aid”

A proper answer to those three objectives should take a long run perspective. America is safer and more prosperous when the rest of the world (our trading partners) is also more prosperous. We are stronger when we have earned the rest of the world’s respect and cooperation. USAID, by providing humanitarian and development assistance to other countries, gains their respect and gratitude, which promotes their cooperation. When President John F Kennedy established the USAID in 1961 he made this case calling it American soft power. Following Congress’s adoption of the Foreign Assistance Act in September1961, Kennedy consolidated several foreign aid agencies into the USAID in order to improve coordination and efficiency.  It is fair to ask whether this is the most efficient way of packaging these activities and coordinating them with other departments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLzwsc3XGNA

USAID has missions in over 100 countries. Congress authorizes USAID’s programs in the Foreign Assistance Act, which Congress supplements through directions in annual funding appropriation acts and other legislation. As an official component of U.S. foreign policy, USAID operates subject to the guidance of the president, Secretary of State, and the National Security Council.

Of USAID’s total budget of almost $8 billion in 2001 and $34 billion in fiscal 2024 (less than 1% of total federal budget), one third goes to public health and the rest to disaster relief, and economic and government capacity building. Its programs to treat HIV and malaria have saved millions of lives, largely in Africa, over the last two decades. It played a major role in implementing George W Bush’s “President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) which saved over 25M lives globally. “State Department: About US PETFAR” It played an important role in ending smallpox and increasing global literacy.

When I asked several USAID staff what they considered the agency’s greatest successes they sighted South Korea which is now a major US trading partner, and Columbia which has risen from a failed state to a secure middle-income country and a major US trading partner. But we can no longer access the details of these programs as USAID’s website was taken down February 1.   

Those lives saved, plus the technical assistance in governance, infrastructure, and building stronger economies has raised incomes in these countries and their sales to and purchases from the US and other countries abroad (trade). As the U.S. benefits economically from these stronger economics, American citizens are also kept safer.  With stronger economies comes stability for citizens to live peaceful, prosperous lives, turning away from the perils of extremism and increasing security on the ground. Thus, American aid has not only gained respect, good will, and cooperation from the aid recipients but increased trade, income, and security in the US as a result. In a statement made by then U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, he highlighted that six of the United States’ ten largest trading partners had graduated from assistance provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In a 2015 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, for instance, Rubio said USAID “not only is doing what is right, but we are also furthering our national interests.” “Washington Post: Marco Rubio USAID”

The mean average managed foreign assistance disbursed in the fiscal years 2001 to 2024 by USAID was $22.9 billion in inflation adjusted to 2023 dollars; 2023 was an exceptional year because of an extra $16 billion of funds for Ukraine. America’s military budget over this period was almost $850 billion dollars per year. Since 9/11, the United States has spent an estimated $8 trillion on wars and counterterrorism efforts globally. This figure includes direct military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries, as well as related costs like veteran care and interest on borrowed funds to finance the wars. Over 7,000 American servicemen died in these wars and deaths many multiples of that were suffered by our allies and our enemies over that period. Total Defense Department expenditures over this period were $14 trillion compare with USAID’s expenditures of 0.6 trillion with many lives saved and almost none lost. The State Department’s annual budget ranged from $50 to $60 billion over the same period. Soft power is clearly a bargain for the American taxpayers seeking a safer, stronger, more prosperous America. Why does President Trump want to shut it down?

Not all projects have been successful in achieving their objectives. But many claims of waste and corruption are not supported by facts:

“In 2025, the Trump administration accused USAID of ‘wasting massive sums of taxpayer money’ over several decades, including during Trump’s first presidency from 2017 to 2021. The administration highlighted a list of twelve projects, totaling approximately $400 million—less than 1% of USAID’s annual budget—dating back to 2005. Among the examples cited were $1.5 million for LGBT workplace inclusion in Serbia, $2.5 million to build electric vehicle chargers in Vietnam, $6 million for tourism promotion in Egypt, and ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ (the largest item) purportedly allocated to discourage Afghanistan farmers from growing poppies for opium, which allegedly ended up supporting poppy cultivation and benefiting the Taliban. Fact checkers found that these claims were largely false, ‘highly misleading,’ or wrong.” “Wikipedia: United States Agency for International Development” 

For another example, claims that USAID funded major media organizations like Politico or BBC News were false. Payments were for subscriptions or grants to independent media projects, not direct funding of news operations. 

But neither USAID nor any other government agency is perfect. Some functions should be eliminated and others automated or streamlined and oversight strengthened. But in order to properly review its programs and operations most operations should continue until a broad consensus is achieved on what reforms are desirable how they can must efficiently be executed. For functions that survive: “’The end goal is replacing much of the human workforce with machines,’ said a U.S. official closely watching DOGE activity. ‘Everything that can be machine-automated will be. And the technocrats will replace the bureaucrats.’”  “Washington Post: DOGE Musk goals” These are worthy goals.

This “convinced Democratic lawmakers and financial columnists, who have long promoted the analogy between citizens and consumers, that DOGE could be a good idea. ‘Streamlining government processes and reducing ineffective government spending should not be a partisan issue,’ announced Congressman Jared Moskovitz (D-FL) when he joined the DOGE caucus in December. ‘If Doge can actually unleash digital reform in the US government, and in a non-corrupt manner, that would be an unambiguously good thing,’ Gillian Tett wrote last month in the Financial Times.”   “Speed-up-the-breakdown”

But suddenly suspending programs and payment while undertaking a review is the wrong approach. To take but one example, Trump’s foreign aid freeze is having unintended effects in Latin America, including halting programs aimed at stopping the flow of fentanyl. Trump has vowed to impose tariffs unless Mexico stops the trafficking of fentanyl, a major killer of young adults in the US, but the aid freeze has halted funding that Mexican authorities rely on to destroy clandestine labs, Reuters reported. Countries across Latin America are scrambling to respond to the cuts, which have dealt a blow to humanitarian programs designed to slow migration to the US — which Trump has also promised to crack down on — as well as conservation efforts in Brazil and coca eradication in Peru.

USAID’s budget and the projects it finances generally arise from the recommendations of USAID Missions in the countries it operates in accordance with the development objectives captured by the respective Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) created in concert with the host government and civil society. Almost two-thirds of its employees are locally employed staff, many from the upper echelons of the political and social classes of that country, which means stronger ties and partnerships for USAID and the host country government political figures. Some of these local staff go on to join the host country government as Members of Parliament, establishing connections between the USG and the host country government that are unmatched in terms of influence. USAID operates with an understanding of the local institutions and culture that is deep and strongly influences the projects it recommends. These recommendations are reviewed and vetted by multiple entities, including USAID regional bureaus, the State Department Office of Foreign Assistance, the Office of Management and Budget, and by the House and Senate Foreign Affairs and Operations Committees.  These oversight tools include USAID answering inquiries sent directly to regional USAID Bureaus by individual members of Congress  and through the Congressional Notification process, where every USAID project and dollar is reviewed through Hill briefings and questioning of USAID officials by Congress for its approval, which has full oversight of their execution, and gives Congress the ability to place “holds” on funding preventing obligations of funds to take place before answering their inquiries.

As with other government agencies USAID’s operations are reviewed by an independent Inspector General. USAID Inspector General Paul Martin was officially fired on February 11, one day after his office issued a critical report warning that nearly $500 million in food was about to go bad due to President Donald Trump’s freeze on the agency. Rather than the announcement coming from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the current acting director of the USAID, it was announced by the White House Office of Presidential Personnel. Martin’s office published a six-page report the day before that argued that the recent pause on foreign assistance programs and the slashing of USAID staff has prompted ‘risks and challenges’ to the safeguarding and distribution of the $8.2 billion in humanitarian assistance. Among other things confidence in America health aid in many cases was shattered by its sudden suspension thus undermining its benefit to the US.

“One U.S. official credited Rubio with pushing for the 10,000-person agency to keep on the job roughly 600 staffers as essential workers instead of the 290 suggested by some Trump officials.” .”  “Washington Post: Marco Rubio on USAID”  Whether that is the right number or not (i.e. the staff needed to perform the functions that best serve American interests) the sledgehammer being swung by DOGE is not the right, and certainly not the cheapest, approach to determining it.

Conclusion

The government does more than is best for the country and many programs should be ended or reformed. Freezing them in order to undertake a review is the wrong approach. Lasting positive reforms must be a careful consultative process. The debate over a big bang vs a more gradual approach following the collapse of the Soviet Union is illuminating. Anyone who thinks they can work with a “blank slate” is a fool. Such an approach has never been successful.

The USAID has generally been very successful and should not be “shut down.” To date the DOGE approach has done harm to American standing, safety and prosperity and reduced taxpayer safeguards of who their money is spent rather than strengthened them. The USAID website has been removed thus eliminating the transparency of its operation to public scrutiny. The USAID’s Inspector General has been fired thus eliminating independent oversight, though the Supreme Court may overturn this executive action. The overall approach of DOGE to reform with worries about conflicts of interest is doing more harm than good.