> U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID): The USAID Inspector General initiated a probe into Starlink satellite terminals provided to the Government of Ukraine

From a House Committee report matching Elon’s actions to agencies he has personal issues with:

https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025.02....

Unlikely he cares about that contract at all, it’s only a token value for services to Ukraine that Starlink previously provided for free.

Annual spend under than contract is less than 1 million, immaterial for someone like Musk.

The most likely reason is that he thought there would be the most headline grabbing waste in that department, because it was well known to have been turned into a democrat slush fund.

USAID was funding the StarLink deployment in Ukraine and was reexamining the deal[1], likely to try to negotiate a cheaper plan or to reduce the funding. My opinion is that it likely hit his ego a bit and it was a really sweet deal for StarLink, so losing out on it would suck.

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/usaid-elon-musk-starlink-probe-ukra...

Immaterial. Contract was worth less than $1mill

Calling a guy a pedophile repeatedly because you made yourself look stupid getting excited about your cool submarine and how awesome everyone will think you are when you save some kids wasn't really worth much money either. I don't think Musk has the self-control to think like that, honestly.

It may not be the monetary amount but the message it sends.

Mess with me and Ill shut you down.

Unlikely. No one really cares about temporary low-value ad-hoc arrangements like the one between Starlink and USAID. It's too small to matter.

The FAA and EPA have been much much bigger headaches for Musk.

USAID was just a juicy target, since it was essentially a slush fund.

Musk is a pretty guy, though. Remember "pedo guy?"

Given that,your retort inadvertently supports the GP.

It had little to do with the contract size. Starlink was being investigated to determine how the Russians were getting/using them.

https://www.newsweek.com/usaid-elon-musk-starlink-probe-ukra...

This raises a potential conflict of interest, as Musk's company was under investigation by USAID shortly before he began calling for the shutdown. Starlink's activity in Eastern Europe has been criticized, with many Russian operatives claiming to have access to Starlink despite Musk's assurances that only Ukraine was using the service.

Additionally, in September last year, Ukrainian forces downed a Russian drone that had a Starlink terminal integrated with its systems, raising questions as to how secure Starlink's operations during the Ukraine war are.

USAID has no ability to investigate or enforce sanctions, so that doesn’t make sense.

> it was so well known to have been a slush fund for Democrats

So well known by whom, and how? I never heard a peep about this until a few weeks ago, and all such claims seem to be coming from the same group of people with obvious ulterior motives.

Eliminating foreign aid seems to be a common cause of neo-conservative movements.

Boris Johnson shut down the British equivalent(Department for International Development) and scrapped the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on aid.

It's simplistic, drastic and brings no specific domestic effect which could be a rallying point for unrest.

It's also very easy to come up with rage bait stories of corruption and waste as justification, because in any organisation spending billions of dollars around the world you will always be to find something ridiculous that got funding, even though the proportion of the budget it represents is insignificant.

Lol you clearly have no idea what a 'neo-conservative' is or their history.

Neo-Conservatives were a branch of Democrat wark-hawks who wanted to police the world, that were upset about the pacifist attitude of the Democrats at the time - they emerged in the 60's and managed to largely take control of the Republican party moving forward, peaking under George W Bush.

Their founding principal was "Peace Through Strength" and have a strong belief in worldwide interventionism.

If you think the 'MAGA' / 'Trump' party is neo-conservative you literally just are ignoring the entire history, the power struggle (which Trump won) to retake the party from the Neo-Cons, and the fact that the trump admin is largely isolationist and opposed to being the world police.

Don't get me wrong there are still some neo-cons in office and with roles in his admin, but the republican infighting can be summarized as neocon vs MAGA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoconservatism

Words mean things. The MAGE/America First party is focused on non-interventionism, advocate against regime change abroad, with a focus on America and it's interest rather than the endless wars.

You can debate the success or merit of that approach I guess, but the Neo-Cons are very happy to provide foreign aid as it is core to their ideology. They tend to do it via NED while the left uses USAID more (although both use both, but they each have lean in one direction).

Just for fun, I just tried this little experiment you can try to: " CoPilot: Can you rationally describe Trump as a neocon?

CoPilot: No, it would not be accurate to rationally state that Donald Trump is a neoconservative (neocon). Here are some key differences:

Foreign Policy: Neocons: Advocate for interventionist foreign policies, promoting democracy and regime change abroad. Trump: Emphasizes “America First” policies, focusing on non-interventionism, reducing military engagements abroad, and prioritizing domestic issues.

Military Engagement: Neocons: Support maintaining strong international alliances and a significant military presence globally.

Trump: Criticized NATO, praised authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin, and negotiated troop withdrawals from conflict zones like Afghanistan.

Economic Policies: Neocons: Generally support free trade and globalization.

Trump: Advocates for economic nationalism, including tariffs and renegotiating trade deals to favor American interests.

These differences highlight that Trump’s policies and ideology do not align with neoconservative principles. If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask! "

Yes, indeed, I haven't the slightest clue what neo-conservatism is. Thankyou for your informative comment.

An easy win with his rabid xenophobic fan base? A soft target to hurt his opponents and distract from other terrible things they're doing?

Perhaps he wants the budget reallocated to something he has more financial interest in and control over? Or something like that for Thiel or others?

Scenario: You give someone $40B to feed people, and $1B actually feeds them while $39B vanishes into overhead and ideological reprogramming. Then they tell you they need more. If this is success, what does failure look like?

And you have the proof for these numbers, or are they pulled out of Elon's behind?

I have my own experience. As a non-American, I know a lot of hungry people. And I have never heard of any help for them from USAID. And who do you think received help from USAID out of all those I have encountered and ever heard about? Only left-leaning democrat's shield "independent" journalists, whose job mostly consist of ideological reprogramming and who now scream all over twitter how Trump destroys their lives. ONLY.

So yes, I don't have any numbers, but I'm used to trusting my own eyes. And what I see (on this particular issue) is way more consistent with what Musk says than with what his opponents say.

> And I have never heard of any help for them from USAID

Personal anecdotes are never a good proof of anything.

> So yes, I don't have any numbers, but I'm used to trusting my own eyes.

So you don't believe in viruses bacteria to name just a few things you can't see with your own eyes?

USAID had many programs, only a number which where about helping the poor, and it's possible those didn't specifically target your country.

E.g. between the poor and hungry people in Moldova (my own native country) and in Sudan USAID would probably chose those in Sudan (what with war and genocide and...). And they might chose to support businesses in Moldova instead (and they did).

I'm not saying it's a perfect program devoid of any corruption. What I'm saying I can come up with as many bogus numbers, and with as many personal anecdotes as the next guy.

And Elon sure as hell resists any attempts to shed light on his activities and claims.

> Only left-leaning democrat's shield "independent" journalists, whose job mostly consist of ideological reprogramming and who now scream all over twitter how Trump destroys their lives. ONLY.

Do you think they do that because they lost funding, or because, say, China or Russia stepped into the void with literally the same support programs?

>Personal anecdotes are never a good proof of anything.

Obviously. But when such anecdotes are consistent with the position of the democratically elected president of USA... What specific reasons do I have to not trust to MY eyes?

>So you don't believe in viruses bacteria to name just a few things you can't see with your own eyes?

No, where did you get that from?

>USAID had many programs, only a number which where about helping the poor, and it's possible those didn't specifically target your country.

Got it. My leftist country were targeted by programs, that promote democrat's left-leaning agenda. Helping poor and hungry - it is for others countries. It’s even surprising, why anyone would hinder such an amazing organization.

>Do you think they do that because they lost funding, or because, say, China or Russia stepped into the void with literally the same support programs?

How are you imagine this? I mean if China or Russia is ready to pay to promote the idea that Trump is the greatest evil on the planet, then maybe.

> overhead and ideological reprogramming

I despair at the thought process that crams these two things together.

2.5% overhead would be really good. Most charities don’t come close.

“Ideological reprogramming,” whatever that actually means, would be completely different.

It's called the US Agency for International Development. Everyone seems to think "AID" is a word here. It is not, it is an acronym.

OK, I'm aware, not sure what that has to do with anything here.

It looks like USAID had 4B of the 40B budget actually reach endpoint users, which would make the overhead closer to 90% [1], not 97.5% like I originally estimated.

[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/67b7a0c4-bf48-8011-9997-41b350dd0b...

Reading this gpt answer: > In fiscal year 2022, nearly 90% of USAID's expenditures were allocated to international contracting partners

How are you figuring that none of that is reaching endpoint users? E.g. I imagine the International Red Cross could be such a partner.

Seriously? Not even your own linked conversation supports this assertion, even though you tried to lead it there.

>What's Elon's beef with USAID?

They were investigating Starlink:

https://oig.usaid.gov/node/6814

By the look of it, they were investigating how Ukraine use of Starlink provided to them. You make a great journalist. lol.

Thanks.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250101100055/https://www.usaid...

That's now removed from the live website of course.

Point being, it's a little strange USAID was immediately targeted for destruction with extreme prejudice by the same man providing the terminals.

I'm not refuting Musk probably hate them like all other regulators or might take advantage of getting into like FAA's operation. It's been obvious on both sides of the aisle. Is USAID corrupt? I think so, foreign money is the most difficult to track. Is FAA technology and management sucks? I believe that, too. Many things can be true at the same time. Since no body can fix it before Musk got his butt in started farting, why are people not benefiting from the kickbacks or inefficiencies complaining is beyond me.

>Is USAID corrupt? I think so, ...

Yeah wow, so corrupt. /s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-usaid-official-calls-closur...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2q13113wwo

You should have lived long enough to know a person can be a good father to his kids and still murder innocent people. Both things can be true. If a person doing these good things while made $30 million in 3 years on $200k salary, I can reasonably assume some serious corruption is going on.

Keep believing those baseless conspiracy theories. [0]

>"U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, ..."

>"Nichols noted that despite Trump’s claim of massive “corruption and fraud” in the agency, government lawyers had no support for that argument in court."

Meanwhile, the reality of the situation is simply tragic. [1]

[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/judge-blocks-trump-...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/donald-trump-u...

"USAid money is spent supporting independent journalism" is an oxymoron. When a state sponsors something journalistic, it's called propaganda... not independent. Not saying they are not heroic doing this work, this money shouldn't come from US. If they can't keep the effort alive organically, they should get help from donations. These US congressmen for God sake need to keep their hands in their own wallets, not taxpayers.

Not sure what's your point on the Politico article. It is tragic that disrupt a lot of people's lives. Like I said, it doesn't mean there's no corruption, only good is happening. Both things can be true at the same time. This thing can be tragic, Congress might get their shit together - hopefully.

>If they can't keep the effort alive organically, they should get help from donations.

Harsh words for people documenting genocide.

>Not sure what's your point on the Politico article.

It was a supporting citation for the federal judge pointing out that no evidence was presented of the supposed corruption.

My understanding is USAID was one of those organizations thet refused to pause spending when Trump lawfully asked all agencies to stop spending (it was a 90 day hold, not a outright denial, only congress can do that). Agencies that should adhere to trumps orders went to the top.

> refused to pause spending when Trump lawfully asked all agencies to stop spending

How do you imagine any agency to "stop spending"? Are salaries not to be paid? Are contracts not to be fulfilled? Are rents not to be paid?

what's with people not having beef with USAID? It's done so many crazy and bad things, for example:

USAID funded the hepatitis vaccination drive that the CIA used as a cover for espionage against the bin laden family, leading to polio outbreak in pakistan.

https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/he-led-cia-bin-laden-and-...

Distaste for USAID in any other time would be bipartisan; the Clinton Administration floated shuttering it too. If you go to DC a lot of insiders will say, 'yeah, USAID's got to go'.

This seems like a criticism of the CIA, not USAID, no?

> The decision to enlist Afridi was probably made by the CIA station chief in Islamabad and was passed on to the Counterterrorism Center back in Langley.

don't fool yourself. USAID had the power to stop this.

What makes you think so, exactly? It's not like CIA would let everyone within the organisation know they are doing it. Do you think USAID could just say no to CIA?

IF YOU ARE INVOLVED WITH LYING TO PEOPLE AND NOT ADMINISTERING VACCINES AND DOING DNA TESTS, THEN IT IS YOUR INDVIDUAL DUTY TO STOP YOUR ORG FROM CONTINUING.

....what happened with your capslock?

Again, do you think the head of USAID could have just told the head of CIA "no we're not doing this"?

What makes you think they were informed at all? That's kind of the entire MO of CIA - they don't inform other agencies what they are doing when it concerns national security, they just go and do it.

let me spell it out for you:

If you're a midlevel program manager (or whatever role label they have) at USAID you should be noticing that vaccines are not being given out. If USAID doesn't have the capability to monitor its programs to the point where that level of accountability exists, then it shouldn't exist.

Look, we can both play this game - let me spell this out for you the 3rd time

"do you think the head of USAID could have just told the head of CIA "no we're not doing this"?"

>>If USAID doesn't have the capability to monitor its programs to the point where that level of accountability exists

If you think CIA hasn't thought about this and addressed it some other way, then I guess the assumption we're working with is that CIA is literally incompetent at their actual job.

You're barking at the wrong tree. Be angry at CIA for doing this shit, not at USAID for running a program that got hijacked by them.

Yes absolutely they could... as evidenced by the fact that WE FOUND OUT and the CIA got in trouble for it?

What in the world is going on with this country? How did we let ourselves be ruled by people who think such nonsense?

I postulate a slow, multi-generational decline in critical thinking skills (maybe this is driven, at least partially, by the over abundance of unchallenging media/entertainment) coupled with grievance politics and the bucket-of-crabs mentality that sets in when people start to sense the “pie getting smaller” or at least having reached its peak size.

Vaccination campaigns are “crazy and bad” because they might be hijacked by the CIA?

I think you’ve identified the wrong culprit there buddy.

not might. Were. A USAID that isn't problematic would have stopped it. It failed to; just one symptom of the problems at USAID.

I didn't bring this up because it would be controversial on this website. I think USAID is a tool for advancing US geopolitical interests aims first and foremost and I would like it to be abolished as well. But someone like Musk wanting it to be shuttered doesn't make sense because these organisation in one way or another advance the interests of US businesses and he would benefit from that as well.

I think USAID could certainly be classified as “soft power.” I think throwing it all out makes little sense in light of the provably good things it did.

I think that any sufficiently big organization has done bad things, this alone shouldn't be enough to close an agency.

However, I'm sure Cia has done, does, and will do much worse things than usaid

One of USAID’s first projects involved fighting apartheid in South Africa [1]. Musk is from a wealthy white South African family.

[1] https://2012-2017.usaid.gov/news-information/frontlines/50-y...

They'll work their way up to anti-constitutional attacks on everything else if they get a chance, USAID is their starting point because it's a softer target in a few ways:

1. The people who'll suffer or die from their mal-management will generally be faraway foreigners, as opposed to people voters know.

2. More of the victims have a much more difficult time launching any kind of lawsuit in US courts.

3. It has a small veneer of Presidential-involvement-ness due to its proximity to diplomacy and foreign relations.

4. Like tariffs, being able to withhold aid allows Trump to commit extortion against other countries, much like how he was impeached for extorting Ukraine in his first term.

Ironically USAID might help Americans more than foreign folks, and disproportionately Trump’s own supporters - if the money is being spent to buy American products, particularly food, that is then shipped overseas.

USAID is the facilitator for Starlink in Ukraine. Based on the garbage coming out of Trump about Zelensky in the last couple of days and Russia’s positive comments regarding the “USAID meddling machine” I suspect they got orders from the boss.

USAID is a bogeyman agency in far-right conspiracy circles.

Musk gets his world view from far-right conspiracists.

Funny thing is that kind of government foreign aid is the kind of soft-power over smaller countries thing that right-wingers politicians love, or at least used to. Similar to the BS that China pulls with the belt and road initiative (but probably not as bad in most instances).

Basically give/loan money, get international political support back. Use political support to bully international institutions (UN, WTO, WHO, etc) to do what you want.

I guess soft-power is not enough anymore, they want all the power.

Marco Rubio has been very vocal on his support for USAID for years if you want to see what the traditional right wing take on this has been. "Critical to our security" etc. And he is of course in charge of the smoking remains of it now.

The funny thing is just how inverted the situation is, for years leftists were saying that this kind of foreign aid is often used to hold small countries hostage. While the right wanted to keep the soft-power the aid gives and claiming this kind of aid is used to keep countries democratic.

Now the right is "screw soft-power" and the left is "think of the children". And in the middle people suffering like always.

The worse part is that a lot/most of that aid is probably of very benign influence, but it is definitely also used for nefarious reasons.

This is dangerous sanewashing.

When Trump attacks USAID (or the CIA or the FBI) from the nationalist authoritarian right, it in no way counterbalances people criticizing it from the left.

In particular, the left criticism of USAID were always "think of the children" because they wanted it to do that more and better. They have remained consistent in that.

The "traditional right wing" has been vocal about many things over the years. Nearly every single one has bent their knee.

Conservatism is pretty much dead in the US. It's all about cults of personality and grievance now.

Oh, and of course, graft.

Conservatism before Trump was George W Bush, and while they're very different, it definitely wasn't all sunshine and roses. I don't remember a time in my lifetime when conservatism represented anything good.

I'm a boomer, so I at least remember a time when it was at least more consistently about some sort of values. The Republican party has been through so many changes since then.

However, my entire life Republicans have been the party the KKK is happy to vote for. For a long time that was dismissed as not a problem because they were seen as a fringe, but people pointed out that if your party platform is attractive to the KKK, that is a problem -- you have to kick those people out or they invite their friends and their friends bring worse and worse people.

Lo and behold, the KKK contingent took over the entire party, to the point Liz Cheney (of all people) got kicked out. And the KKK, neo-Nazis, neo-feudalists, Christian nationalists fringed banded together in common cause.

So yes, the Republican party doesn't look like it did 40 years ago, but at the same time it looks exactly like it did 40 years ago.

International aid is such a cheap way to get soft-power while also being able to, you know, help people. Even if a lot of it is misused or inefficiently used the soft-power is there.

A lot of that soft-power has been spent on getting other countries to be more democratic, which is a good thing. Although I don't doubt it has been used for bad reasons as well.

Food stamps.... or transgender operas in Guatamela or wherever...

Is that something they did, or is it something you imagine they did because you’re too credulous of right-wing propaganda?

‘Libertarian ethos’. The guy who’s hoovering up personal data on behalf of a guy who just claimed to be king, that one? Like, how are we defining ‘libertarian’ here?

I didn't mean it too seriously. Just with regard to how one point in the ideology is about governments being small and how DOGE is at least in rhetoric trying to fire federal employees en masse.

libertarian

/ ˌlɪbəˈtɛərɪən /

noun

    1) an idiot

Collateral damage.

He actually wants black Africans to die from AIDS.

It's more likely it came from Trump instead of Elon. Trump is an isolationist and has long complained about money being spent abroad rather than at home.

The only thing "libertarian" about Musk is his extreme interest in his own freedom - everyone else's be damned.

Less than 10% went to the needy. Most of the rest was either wasteful, political or a chain of NGOs performing kickbacks.

They were funding censorship campaigns on American citizens etc