Finally, KImberley Strassels "analysis" in the Wall Street Journal completely and totally ignores the LOGICAL FALLACY of cutting off aid first, and THEN figuring out what needs to be spent. It's like saying "we don't entirely like where this boat is going," so then you just throw all the people out of the boat and let them drown. You don't even give other boats time to come and pick up the actual humans who are in the boat. It is so stupidly obvious. The ideological purity that is required to NOT NOTICE that even if you want to cherry-pick information so thoroughly that you are UNABLE to observe the obvious fact that the agency was providing much-needed (and strategic) aid all over the world — not to mention that simply cancelling that first will have massive consequences. It is beyond logical comprehension. She is an apologist.
KImberley Strassels's statements in WSJ are ridiculous.
As for her claim that cancelled USAID programs were "ridiculous or counterproductive", a FactCheck.org analysis found that only the first project was funded by USAID; the others were financed by the State Department. The report also noted that these highlighted projects represent a small fraction of USAID's budget, which was about $40 billion in fiscal year 2023, less than 1% of the total federal budget (https://www.factcheck.org/2025/02/sorting-out-the-facts-on-waste-and-abuse-at-usaid/).
This is cherry-picking of the most ridiculous kind — either veering on willful distortion, or simply engaging in it outright. It is beyond irresponsible for the Wall Street Journal to print this. The idea of having an OPINION section in a newspaper is to give people a chance to share their OPINIONS about a subject — not to make up their own FACTS.
USAID is such a vital program. It needs to be reinstated and put back to work. Unfortunately, the only thing this president seems to want to do is tear things down.
The plaintiffs (who won), argued that this review process was a "sham". They contended that terminations were being made based on superficial information without proper examination of award documents or consultation with project managers. They even presented declarations from contracting officers disputing that a genuine case-by-case review could have plausibly taken place.
And yet, somehow, WSJ is able to cherry-pick that information. That should never have gotten through fact-checking.
She continues: "Those [administration] papers present an orderly evaluation, complete with notice and procedures, clear objectives, levels of oversight, and a process for waivers or exemptions". But the only source she cites is the aforementioned court ruling, so as far as I can tell, the "papers" is this court ruling (where they lost). That is all I can find.
Whilst I was reading this post a USAID ad appeared on my television saying direct donations to the agency are needed and helpful. A very good idea. Kimberly Strassels myopic view of the agency is wrong, wrong, wrong! This agency receives 1% of the federal budget. That money saves millions of sick and starving people worldwide. It also generates much goodwill. Something the US could use now due to musk's and trump's ineptitude. Call your representatives and senators now! Demand that this agency be saved! 1% !, 1% ! A small amount to save many.
Finally, KImberley Strassels "analysis" in the Wall Street Journal completely and totally ignores the LOGICAL FALLACY of cutting off aid first, and THEN figuring out what needs to be spent. It's like saying "we don't entirely like where this boat is going," so then you just throw all the people out of the boat and let them drown. You don't even give other boats time to come and pick up the actual humans who are in the boat. It is so stupidly obvious. The ideological purity that is required to NOT NOTICE that even if you want to cherry-pick information so thoroughly that you are UNABLE to observe the obvious fact that the agency was providing much-needed (and strategic) aid all over the world — not to mention that simply cancelling that first will have massive consequences. It is beyond logical comprehension. She is an apologist.
KImberley Strassels's statements in WSJ are ridiculous.
As for her claim that cancelled USAID programs were "ridiculous or counterproductive", a FactCheck.org analysis found that only the first project was funded by USAID; the others were financed by the State Department. The report also noted that these highlighted projects represent a small fraction of USAID's budget, which was about $40 billion in fiscal year 2023, less than 1% of the total federal budget (https://www.factcheck.org/2025/02/sorting-out-the-facts-on-waste-and-abuse-at-usaid/).
This is cherry-picking of the most ridiculous kind — either veering on willful distortion, or simply engaging in it outright. It is beyond irresponsible for the Wall Street Journal to print this. The idea of having an OPINION section in a newspaper is to give people a chance to share their OPINIONS about a subject — not to make up their own FACTS.
USAID is such a vital program. It needs to be reinstated and put back to work. Unfortunately, the only thing this president seems to want to do is tear things down.
Wow. Kimberley A. Strassel's writing at WSJ incredibly deceptive. She writes:
"Court documents note that each award was examined on 'an individual basis and through a multi-step process.'" — Incredible.
Yes, it is true — the DEFENDANTS (Trump admin.) do say this, in the judge's ruling of March 10 ((https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69627654/66/aids-vaccine-advocacy-coalition-v-united-states-department-of-state/)). But, they also LOST, and this claim's lack of validity is one of the main reasons they lost the case.
The plaintiffs (who won), argued that this review process was a "sham". They contended that terminations were being made based on superficial information without proper examination of award documents or consultation with project managers. They even presented declarations from contracting officers disputing that a genuine case-by-case review could have plausibly taken place.
And yet, somehow, WSJ is able to cherry-pick that information. That should never have gotten through fact-checking.
She continues: "Those [administration] papers present an orderly evaluation, complete with notice and procedures, clear objectives, levels of oversight, and a process for waivers or exemptions". But the only source she cites is the aforementioned court ruling, so as far as I can tell, the "papers" is this court ruling (where they lost). That is all I can find.
Musk wants Chinese support to make Tesla in China and sell his Tesla to the Chinese !
Trump and Musk are both ANTI-AMERICAN!
I am 💯 % with USAID!
Trump and Musk are RUSSIAN AGENTS!
Musk also seeks to curry favor with China to
They just disassembled the single most effective, nonviolent way, to help people and lower the tensions between nations. These people are idiots!!!
🖕🖕🖕MSM
Impeach Trump and help these guys
Whilst I was reading this post a USAID ad appeared on my television saying direct donations to the agency are needed and helpful. A very good idea. Kimberly Strassels myopic view of the agency is wrong, wrong, wrong! This agency receives 1% of the federal budget. That money saves millions of sick and starving people worldwide. It also generates much goodwill. Something the US could use now due to musk's and trump's ineptitude. Call your representatives and senators now! Demand that this agency be saved! 1% !, 1% ! A small amount to save many.