2SLGBTQIA+ advancement in various countries to detriment of all else and sponsoring of any elected government that do not confer their electorate with USAID and State department.
For those curious: This was most likely posted because it is gone. I don't think USAID's disappearance is a particularly good HN topic, but it's liable to just confuse people like this.
What are your concerns? My understanding is an electoral majority of Americans believe that this soft power is in better hands if it is ceded to other nations such as Russia and China and/or others.
That sort of blanket statement is hard to work with; it seems unlikely to me personally that this was top-of-mind for most voters.
That said: my own objection is primarily moral—I believe humans should help other humans without exception, _especially_ those most in need, and would strongly prefer that be embedded into the society in which we live. If you're going to argue that many folks that voted for the current administration would differ in their preferences around that, you're probably right.
The more cross-cutting argument is that Trump campaigned on getting the US out of expensive wars and preventing getting into forever wars, primarily talking about the monetary cost. Cutting off the US's soft power increases the chances of ending up in a hot war for very little actual savings—the total amount of foreign aid the US spends is below 1% of the budget.
That said: my own objection is primarily moral—I believe humans should help other humans without exception, _especially_ those most in need, and would strongly prefer that be embedded into the society in which we live.
Personally I agree with you but in recent weeks I’ve learned that most of my friends and colleagues were either ambivalent or actively hostile at the idea that the US taxpayers should help buy medicine for 20 million people suffering from HIV. That said, I am fortunate that I have enough food to eat and shelter and I live in relative comfort so I understand that I might be badly out of touch with fellow Americans.
The more cross-cutting argument is that Trump campaigned on getting the US out of expensive wars and preventing getting into forever wars, primarily talking about the monetary cost. Cutting off the US's soft power increases the chances of ending up in a hot war for very little actual savings—the total amount of foreign aid the US spends is below 1% of the budget.
Again I’m personally in agreement with you but my understanding is that the majority of voters have difficulty following this chain of reasoning especially when it is at odds with what they are told by every social media influencer they rely on to get their news.
My understanding is an electoral majority of Americans believe that this soft power is in better hands if it is ceded to other nations such as Russia and China and/or others.
A plurality of voters believing something does not make it true.
See also perhaps "USAID security leaders on leave after trying to keep Musk’s DOGE from classified info, officials say":
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has placed two top security chiefs at the U.S. Agency for International Development on leave after they refused to turn over classified material in restricted areas to Elon Musk’s government-inspection teams, a current and a former U.S. official told The Associated Press on Sunday.
Members of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, eventually did gain access Saturday to the aid agency’s classified information, which includes intelligence reports, the former official said.
Musk’s DOGE crew lacked high-enough security clearance to access that information, so the two USAID security officials — John Vorhees and deputy Brian McGill — were legally obligated to deny access.
It gives me absolutely no joy to say it, but I am concerned the top people in Trumpocracy, notably Trump and Musk, might end up shot.
They are pissing off so many people, so quickly, so heavy-handedly, and in a country literally stuffed with guns.
One guy whose business exports are killed by retaliatory tariffs, or another whose medical care gets shut down, or someone with family in a developing country whose life ends up ruined by the US defaulting on its aid commitments. And it's barely two weeks in.
And yes, I know it's mostly the MAGA crowd who has guns, but they are half the country, and Trump doesn't seem to mind shooting with his eyes shut. Well, you're going to hit quite a few of your own people if you do that. Populist sentiment seems to run out when you hit people where it hurts - their wallet.
To be clear, the thought gives me no joy. Already being a US president is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, and this would only set an awful precedent for whoever follows.
I doubt anything will happen to Trump while in office: the Secret Service will move heaven and earth to prevent another presidential assassination. They've already got enough egg on their face from the near-misses during Trump's campaign, but the resources they dedicate to protecting candidates and former Presidents is a mere fraction of what they devote to the President while in office. A presidential assassination would utterly destroy what remains of the Secret Service's already tarnished credibility, and even seriously risk triggering a second Civil War.
I don't believe Musk has Secret Service protection, but as the richest man in the world, his private security budget is effectively unlimited.
For context
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter...
Thank you.
Is the fact that it's down implying something?
It seems so, see:
https://web.archive.org/web/20241218234652/https://www.usaid...
Looks like a site for Aid for international development. One of the items Trump wants to eliminate.
2SLGBTQIA+ advancement in various countries to detriment of all else and sponsoring of any elected government that do not confer their electorate with USAID and State department.
Bad cert the you get "You see this page because there is no Web site at this address."
Context: NYT, "End Appears Near for U.S. Aid Agency, Democratic Lawmakers Say" https://archive.is/qzRxa
This was 4th on the front page and all of a sudden it just disappeared
What happened?
Manual moderation? It's not flagged.
Well. Now it's flagged.
Link is dead, automoderation maybe?
A subset of HN users appear to not want this issue to be discussed on this platform.
There are two big ongoing discussions about the new administration's changes to government websites right now
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42905937
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42881367
For those curious: This was most likely posted because it is gone. I don't think USAID's disappearance is a particularly good HN topic, but it's liable to just confuse people like this.
If this is a discussion we want to have, maybe a news article about it would be better? E.g. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/01/politics/usaid-website-offlin... -- which I haven't really read either, but it is probably less confusing.
Almost certainly posted for its sudden absence, yes. USAID is not a small deal; they're an omnipresent entity in much of the developing world.
The "omniprescence" may not be the case going forward. Hopefully colleagues in Russia, China, EU, Japan and other countries can step up.
I have mixed feelings on this one. I hope folks in need of aid get it; I am concerned about a world in which soft power is ceded to Russia and China.
What are your concerns? My understanding is an electoral majority of Americans believe that this soft power is in better hands if it is ceded to other nations such as Russia and China and/or others.
That sort of blanket statement is hard to work with; it seems unlikely to me personally that this was top-of-mind for most voters.
That said: my own objection is primarily moral—I believe humans should help other humans without exception, _especially_ those most in need, and would strongly prefer that be embedded into the society in which we live. If you're going to argue that many folks that voted for the current administration would differ in their preferences around that, you're probably right.
The more cross-cutting argument is that Trump campaigned on getting the US out of expensive wars and preventing getting into forever wars, primarily talking about the monetary cost. Cutting off the US's soft power increases the chances of ending up in a hot war for very little actual savings—the total amount of foreign aid the US spends is below 1% of the budget.
Personally I agree with you but in recent weeks I’ve learned that most of my friends and colleagues were either ambivalent or actively hostile at the idea that the US taxpayers should help buy medicine for 20 million people suffering from HIV. That said, I am fortunate that I have enough food to eat and shelter and I live in relative comfort so I understand that I might be badly out of touch with fellow Americans.
Again I’m personally in agreement with you but my understanding is that the majority of voters have difficulty following this chain of reasoning especially when it is at odds with what they are told by every social media influencer they rely on to get their news.
A plurality of voters believing something does not make it true.
Hitler came to power after winning a majority of votes too.
Many Americans no longer believe it is taboo to salute him.
Through this I learned CISAs website runs on Drupal and that was much cooler to me than I thought it would be.
thought process (hmmm what other gov do I know? oh I'll curl up cisa. oh it uses drupal thats neat.)
Well there goes a front for covert ops.
Bush & Obama used it to fund anti-Castro media.
See also perhaps "USAID security leaders on leave after trying to keep Musk’s DOGE from classified info, officials say":
* https://apnews.com/article/doge-musk-trump-classified-inform...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42910635
I seem to remember some hullabaloo about Clinton not treating (potentially) classified e-mails appropriately.
It gives me absolutely no joy to say it, but I am concerned the top people in Trumpocracy, notably Trump and Musk, might end up shot.
They are pissing off so many people, so quickly, so heavy-handedly, and in a country literally stuffed with guns.
One guy whose business exports are killed by retaliatory tariffs, or another whose medical care gets shut down, or someone with family in a developing country whose life ends up ruined by the US defaulting on its aid commitments. And it's barely two weeks in.
And yes, I know it's mostly the MAGA crowd who has guns, but they are half the country, and Trump doesn't seem to mind shooting with his eyes shut. Well, you're going to hit quite a few of your own people if you do that. Populist sentiment seems to run out when you hit people where it hurts - their wallet.
To be clear, the thought gives me no joy. Already being a US president is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, and this would only set an awful precedent for whoever follows.
I doubt anything will happen to Trump while in office: the Secret Service will move heaven and earth to prevent another presidential assassination. They've already got enough egg on their face from the near-misses during Trump's campaign, but the resources they dedicate to protecting candidates and former Presidents is a mere fraction of what they devote to the President while in office. A presidential assassination would utterly destroy what remains of the Secret Service's already tarnished credibility, and even seriously risk triggering a second Civil War.
I don't believe Musk has Secret Service protection, but as the richest man in the world, his private security budget is effectively unlimited.
Yeah, maybe not Trump or Musk, but there's a lot of them.al
Also, you only need one bullet to go through, and Trump doesn't strike me like the guy who does everything Secret Service tells him to do.