Donald Trump, in the opening days of his second term in the White House, has revealed a huge scandal involving the US Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID is a government program that makes grants, primarily in poor and developing countries. Trump and others in the MAGA movement have been ultra critical of these grants recently, claiming that they take US taxpayer dollars and provide extravagances for foreign countries while Americans go hungry and homeless.
In recent interviews, Trump claimed that USAID was rife with corruption, and said that money from the grants given by USAID was being used for ridiculous purposes, often in ways that end up harming the United States. One of his favorite examples of wasted spending is a grant given to Gaza for $50 million worth of condoms.
Obviously, such a grant on it’s face seems wasteful. Why are we providing condoms to people living in Gaza? And if we’re going to provide condoms, why would we spend so much. After all, fewer than 2.2 million people live in Gaza. The whole premise reeks of mismanagement and the potential for corruption.
The only problem was, it wasn’t true. (It took Elon Musk several days, but he finally admitted it wasn’t true) The grant Trump referred to spent exactly zero dollars on condoms for Gaza. That didn’t stop him from doubling-down, claiming that Palestinians were using the condoms to build bombs, although it wasn’t clear exactly how that was possible.
The controversy brewing up around USAID is a test case for the Trump Administration. It is a trial balloon that Trump and his accomplices hope they can use to dismantle government agencies and institutions, and consolidate power in the Executive.
Author Joel Emery has written about how Trump is using the totally manufactured scandal over USAID, and his writing has been eye-opening. I normally don’t share complete articles from other writers, but I was so impressed with what Joel had to say, I wanted to share it here in its entirety.
Here’s what Joel wrote on 2/8/25:
From Joel Emery:
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 vetted 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 congressionally 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.
Addendum: One aspect of this attack on USAID that isn’t getting enough press is that it is being led by Elon Musk, an unelected tech entrepreneur and the world’s wealthiest person. Musk claims that USAID is corrupt, is pushing a far-left Marxist agenda, and is a criminal organization. However, until recently, neither Musk nor Republicans in Congress have had much negative to say about USAID. In fact, Musk’s businesses have been the recipients of USAID grants.
Musk heads up the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an organization created out of whole cloth. This “department” is made up of Musk and six “DOGE Bros” aged 19-24. The Doge Bros are computer programmers, not forensic accountants, some of whom have a history of illegal computer hacking and racist behavior. Only the best and brightest.
It’s odd that Musk and his minions started their supposed attempt to save taxpayer funds by going after USAID, an agency who’s budget accounts for only about 0.5% of the government’s budget. They could have gone after the Pentagon, which is the single largest discretionary item on the US budget and which failed the last seven audits it has undergone, but instead, he went after one of the smallest. Why?
You may be surprised to learn that prior to his assault on USAID, Musk was under investigation by that agency for money his StarLink business received as part of America’s contribution to Ukraine in their ongoing war with Russia. Ironically (or maybe not), Musk has not mentioned anything about the now defunct investigation or the money his company received.
But that’s not all. Tesla and Space X, both Musk-owned companies, were the target of 17 separate open investigations by the Department of Labor. The Department of Transportation had an open investigation looking at Tesla. The Department of Defense was investigating SpaceX, and the Agriculture Department was investigating Neuralink, a Musk-owned company involved in brain-computer interfaces. In every one of these departments, the inspectors general–the very people tasked with investigating and exposing fraud, corruption, and abuse–were fired once Donald Trump took office. Does that make sense?
And despite Musk’s attack on USAID and other agencies, it’s important to remember that Musk himself is one of the biggest beneficiaries of government largess. He received money to help start Tesla, the electric car company, including a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy. Tesla also received government grants that helped the company develop its supercharger network.
Space X, has received more that $18 billion in government contracts over the past decade, helping to grow the business into the world’s largest aerospace company. In fact, in 2025, Elon Musk-owned companies are scheduled to receive $8 million per day in taxpayer funds. It seems odd having one of the biggest individual beneficiaries of government spending also be the one investigating corruption and fraud in government spending, doesn’t it?
The bottom line is, as Joel Emery points out above, actual audits of government departments would be welcome. If there’s fraud or corruption–and there almost certainly is–it should be discovered and addressed. That is done by forensic accountants, not an unelected billionaire and six guys of questionable background. Do the audits, publish the results, and hold wrongdoers accountable. But don’t allow some rando, who just happened to spend more than $270 million to get the President elected, rummage through the government departments, disrupting their work and tearing things apart. The chaos he’s causing effects real people.

