Unilateral Dismemberment

A Primer on Ceding Global Leadership

While it's difficult and probably not fair to try to analyze a president's performance after eighteen days in office—kind of like drawing conclusions about the Super Bowl after one team's first series of downs—a couple of things stand out.

Photo by Jackson Simmer on Unsplash

No, not his approach to immigration. Or the threatened (and real) tariffs against our largest trading partners. Or even the "novel" idea of repatriating the people of Gaza, having the U.S. take control, and treating it as a seaside real estate development. (Talk about thinking outside the box!) These are vintage Trump, and at least in the first two cases well telegraphed during the campaign and no surprise.

And not the pardoning or commutation of sentences for those convicted for crimes on January 6, even the most violent offenders who attacked police officers either. Again, he hinted very publicly that he would do this, and he did.

Neither is it any surprise that he is going after certain elements of the federal workforce, or the "deep state" in MAGA parlance. This includes anyone who was involved in managing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs, but also employees who participated in them. According to news reports, dozens of employees of the Department of Education were placed on administrative leave (a kind of bureaucratic death row for federal employees) for attending a DEI workshop during, uh, the first Trump Administration.

That's interesting, because during most of my 34 years of federal service, participation in such programs was a yearly requirement, along with security training, veterans preference training, leadership training, and so on. And of course, it’s no surprise that a purge of Department of Justice and FBI career officials who worked on the Trump cases and January 6 is underway. President Trump telegraphed "revenge" and he is delivering.

Promises made, promises kept.

*****

But Why This?

So what did take me by surprise? For one, the fast-motion elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), created by President Kennedy in 1961 as the flagship vehicle for U.S. foreign assistance. I suppose this grabbed my attention first and foremost because I'm intimately acquainted with USAID, having served for 28 of my 34 years in government overseas and as a Deputy Chief of Mission, Charge d'Affaires and Ambassador in numerous countries where USAID works, and having oversight over USAID personnel and programs.

Even more notable is the way in which the president chose to eliminate it. I'm guessing he’ll use the same playbook as he moves on from the “low-hanging fruit” of USAID (which by definition doesn't have a domestic constituency) to harder, better defended domestic targets like Education, the National Institutes of Health, Health and Human Services, and so on.

The playbook looks like this: First, demonize the organization. State that it has been managed by "radical lunatics", and have Elon Musk claim that the Agency is a "criminal organization". Make up stories of insane USAID projects, like "50 million dollars for condoms in Gaza". Maintain that USAID has pursued it's own radical agenda far removed from our national interests, that it has empowered our enemies and alienated our friends. Imply that USAID's 10,000 employees are radical, woke and disloyal. Then have Elon Musk’s private hit squad (reportedly in their teens and twenties) take control of the Agency, lock federal employees out of the Ronald Reagan building headquarters and their email accounts, place the career security officers who tried to protect the integrity of the physical and virtual spaces (including classified ones) on administrative leave, and then, in a stunning and unprecedented move, close down USAID missions overseas and order all American personnel to return home within 30 days.

But wait, who exactly is doing this? Under what administrative pretext are they acting? With what legal authority? We don't know. And where is the Secretary of State (now the putative acting Director of USAID) during this intrusion? (Probably keeping his head down, figuring it won’t be long before he, too, falls victim of the "process").

*****

So let's back up. As I said, I have a lot of experience working with USAID and a pretty good understanding of how they work overseas and how their programs align with our foreign policy goals. Let's admit up front (as any USAID employee will tell you) that, although the Agency generally does outstanding work, it also has challenges and areas for improvement—in some cases considerable improvement. And yes, I suppose it’s not shocking that, in an Agency with some 40 billion dollars in programs, some may be of marginal value and would be better off redirected.

What would be a logical and constructive way to improve it? What would a rational approach be if the goal was to strengthen American leadership overseas? How should the US wield its soft power? How should we address issues like global health, poverty, corruption, migration—issues that originate outside our borders but affect us directly? How should we do this in a way that make us stronger? These are perfectly legitimate questions.

Instead of name calling and making slanderous accusations, how about identifying the key problems, identifying solutions, and holding leadership accountable for making corrections? By all means call out stupid programs and eliminate them. But deleting an entire flagship agency, a core component of our global soft power, makes no sense at all.

What is the endgame? Who is managing the process? What are the criteria? Again, we don’t know. Musk’s mysterious hit squad has not communicated its intentions—not to the public, not to employees, not to Congress (which appropriated USAID's funds). Possibly not to the President or Secretary of State. Who really knows?

Which brings us to Marco Rubio, Secretary of State and now acting head of USAID. Rubio is seasoned and smart. He has traveled widely. He understands U.S. global leadership, soft power, the transnational threats facing us, and the benefits that accrue to US national interests from our foreign assistance programs. But it's clear he doesn’t control this process.

Rubio will have to figure out how to manage the Musk wrecking crew and the malignant mediocrities that the MAGA team will send him (See Darren Beattie, "Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work." See also Kimberly Guilfoyle, Ambassador-designate to Greece). There have been hints that State itself will also be a target of Musk and DOGE. More importantly, Rubio will have to figure out how to manage "the audience of one". But it isn't clear to me that the President himself is in charge of the Musk-led process at USAID and beyond. Has he simply outsourced it? Does the commander in chief actually support the elimination of U.S. global leadership around the world, ceding the field to others, especially China?

Shuttering USAID and eliminating its programs represents a kind of unilateral dismemberment. It is a gift to autocrats and those who oppose U.S. leadership in the world.