A 28-Year-Old DOGE Operative Gutted USAID. HR Had No Record of Him Working There
j / k
|
Down or up a comment |
h / l
|
Previous or next link |
?
|
This help |
You can debate whether the President has the power to dismantle USAID under the relevant statutes. Those lawsuits are winding their way through the courts. But if he does have the power, then it would be perverse if he couldn’t exercise the power due to HR rules. You cannot put HR in the way of the duly elected President exercising his powers.
It's not even established that he has the power. The fact that they do something doesn't mean they have that power.
And given that, it doesn't mean that you get to ignore all other rules.
> You cannot put HR in the way of the duly elected President exercising his powers.
When you're firing thousands of people, some due diligence is in order, no?
Sure, I agree with that. But the President doesn’t need a court ruling giving permission before he exercises his powers. The President is the chief executive in charge of government operations, not the courts. If he’s acting outside his authority, you can sue him and then the courts can figure it out.
> When you're firing thousands of people, some due diligence is in order, no
Not when those people work for the government. This is one of the few things I agree with FDR on: the nature of democracy means that government employees must have less employment protections than private sector workers, not more. Even if you have an expansive view of what the constitution allows in terms of Congress providing for independent executive branch agencies, at most that means the President can’t ignore Congress’s intent in funding certain programs. But that still doesn’t allow the bureaucracy invoking HR rules to protect itself against the actions of the elected branches. That effectively gives a small class of people more say over the operation of the government than the electorate as a whole.
I love this. Yes, and then several years later, the courts can declare his order was in fact illegal when it's already far, far too late to reverse any of it.
That kind of "oversight" is no oversight at all. If you believe this is just how things should be, then you want a king with unrestricted power, not a president.
The President isn’t a “king” he’s a CEO. A CEO doesn’t need permission from a court to spend the company’s own money or to take executive actions about the company’s own operations.
Now, the US legislature has, in recent decades, delegated so many of its prerogatives, and overlooked so much executive overreach, that your misappropriation is completely understandable. In fact, though, the current situation is exactly what the framers of the US Constitution most feared. (You can read their discussions at the time collected in a volume called "The Federalist Papers".) Their inability to devise a system to meet a threat they fully anticipated argues against their much-heralded "genius".
Total side-note: CEO as sovereign within "their" company is, arguably, also a perverse interpretation of the US corporate governance model. Feel free to argue that point without me, HN - I know that's just how that works nowadays - but it's totally wrong to import that model into government, where it's explicitly not intended.
It's like byzantine faults, no system can protect you if you don't have some minimum of correctly functioning legislators, judges, and executives.
Not only is he an American, but also he routinely makes arguments to American Federal judges very similar to the argument he is making here or at least he is a colleague and coworker of people who do.
Given the Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United, Loper Bright, and Hobby Lobby I find this notion obscene.
It's not hr writing the rules here. It's them enforcing what they were given.
Also, they're not saying he cannot do what they want to do. It's that the law prescribes that certain things need to happen first.
Those rules were given to them by elected people in Congress.
Edit:
To add
> But the President doesn’t need a court ruling giving permission before he exercises his powers.
The system was created with the assumption that the president would act cautiously and judiciously. This administration doesn't care about whether something is lawful. When you act fast enough the damage will be done before your called out on it.
South Korea saw a president declare martial law and the other branches held him accountable very quickly. I am not convinced the US in the current state would.
Not at all. The founders were focused on having a vigorous executive who could “just do things.” https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp. The system they created is not based on the premise of cautious bureaucracy. It was based on having frequent elections that would empower a vigorous president and political appointees to carry out what they had campaigned on.
The founders were men of action. They would be horrified by how our government today is run by lawyers through APA litigation. The HR-ification of the American government is a mid-20th century invention.
An unreliable source writes, "litigants frequently use the Administrative Procedure Act to argue that an agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures, or exceeded its statutory authority."
100%, just not in the direction you think. They would be apalled at Trump's blatant, in your face corruption all while the MAGA base cheers him on.
I do not believe this is true historically
USAID was created by Congress when it formally codified USAID into statute through the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act in 1998.
So, how is the president allowed to simply ignore a law passed by Congress?
> By March 26, the emails show, Lewin still hadn’t accepted the job offer, and had not filed his OF-306, the federal government's standard pre-employment background screening form; without this document, a federal agency cannot lawfully issue a final job offer or consummate an appointment
> A detailing agreement between the GSA and USAID dated February 14—two weeks after Lewin says he began at USAID—specifes that “commencement of the detail is contingent upon the Detailee’s successful adjudication and receipt of any necessary security clearances and other pre-employment screening required by USAID.
More serious issues than "HR" should have barred him from working, for at least some of the time he did.
Even if it was legal for Trump or Rubio to shut it down, they still have to do it through authorized agents and legal processes. If a "police officer" conducted a search without paperwork on file that establishes their authority to search, it would be illegal, right?
Yes, but the paperwork that decides who is the President or his appointee’s lawful agent is different than the civil service paperwork for employment. Lewin was appointed as an SGE. This article is about the HR details of his internal transfer into USAID. But there is no rule that says someone must be an employee of an agency to assist in shutting down the agency under delegated authority from the cabinet official that oversees the agency.
> If a "police officer" conducted a search without paperwork on file that establishes their authority to search, it would be illegal, right?
Yes. But if he was transferred within the department from vice into homicide and hadn’t done all his paperwork yet, would that be illegal? And also, doing a search is a potential impingement on individual rights. Very different from a doing an internal reorganization within a department. If a CEO pulls in someone from one department to clean house in another department, how much HR paperwork do you really need?
If he ordered a dog to dismantle USAID, would the ineffectiveness of that simply be due to the dog being incompetent and not be legally challengeable?
An acting administrator or agency head can then generally “detail” an employee from anywhere else in the government to serve as a deputy in a temporary basis, which Rubio did here. Agency heads generally have broad discretion to hire their deputies.
USAID still exists on paper. But under the current appropriations bills, the funding is allocated to the State Department.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4779...
Moreover, the impoundment rules don’t require congress to act first before the president acts. They require the money to be spent, but if the budgetary authority is provided over a year it’s hard to say when the president must spend that money within the year. (Unless there’s specific requirements in the statute.)
It's absurd to argue the executive can intentionally delay and shuffle money earmarked specifically for certain purposes, like USAID. Why not just give the executive all power over the Treasury? Why have Congress at all?
There was a few months of overhang, but the Supreme Court ruled that the administration had to pay out billions of dollars that were already allocated to contracts during that period.
There are other theories of course.
as an institutionalist myself, I agree with you that this is terrible governance.
The USAID-related litigation has largely been unsuccessful because the appropriations bills don’t necessarily require USAID to do particular programs. Most of the appropriations bills appropriate money for the State department.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50261784#50265886
The first line of Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The first three articles all start with a similar line. For the legislature and Supreme Court, everyone understands that the powers of those branches can only be exercised by the constitutionally designated actors. Congress can’t create a law that creates bodies within the judiciary staffed by employees that exercises power independently of Article III judges. Similarly, Congress can’t create independent agencies within the executive that can exercise executive power independently of the President.
Congress still directs the President, for example, to operate a Food and Drug Administration in coordination with the HHS secretary and the commissioner of food and drugs. All three of them have broad authority to direct its operations and efforts as they see fit. But they may not decide to stop regulating food and drugs entirely, nor recruit a toadie from Elon Musk as a sin-eater to make that decision.
> I understand it, under the "unitary executive theory" the executive can legally do whatever it wants.
You’re right that this doesn’t have to do with the unitary executive. That’s my point. It’s about things like the impoundment control act.
On top of that, the executive has a responsibility to plan its work ahead of time and make such plans known before enacting them.
There are many cases currently in litigation regarding these failures.
But funding is provided in annual appropriations bills, and Congress has since enacted appropriations bills that allocate funds directly to the state department.
That’s why the USAID litigation has not been very successful. The best legal argument is that the executive can’t cancel funding Congress has specifically allocated to an agency. But Congress eliminated that argument.
For 2025 there was a continuing resolution to keep funding at 2024 levels.
The 2024 bill[1] section 7019 references the state division document[2], which has the spending by category, the tables start on page 20.
[1] - http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240318/WDI39597.PDF
[2] - https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240318/Division%20F%2...
And for 2026 the appropriations bills allocated the money directly to the state department.
Also, are you going to even acknowledge that your previous deflections were completely incorrect, and that you just reflexively moved to a new deflection that is also incorrect?
The impoundment control act specifically provides for Congress to resend previously appropriate spending if the president doesn’t want to spend it. nothing in the empowerment control act that clearly prevents the president from freezing spending for a short period within a single given budget year before asking Congress to resend particular appropriations.
https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/u-s-foreign-aid-fre...
The USAID budget in 2024 was almost $35 billion annually. If you search the budget bill for amounts “apportioned to” USAID, you will not find $35 billion of annual budget authority specifically to USAID. Much of USAID’s funding is appropriated to the President and apportioned to State. State has broad powers to transfer the funds: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-134/t22/s2675/
There is a complex web of statues and regulations that applies to the state department specifically. There is a reason these lawsuits have not gone anywhere.
The problem is that if you see everything through the twin lenses of paper and power that you risk losing your humanity. USAID, if anything, did plenty of good. I've seen it up close. Seeing it shut down killed people, pure and simple, and whether that may have not been the goal (it may well have been the goal, I do not know) the outcome is the same.
Creative interpretation of the rules and using judges bought and paid for and installed on dubious grounds as ways to force through things that in any other administration would have you hollering makes for an interesting test in character, morals and ultimately in actual justice.
And therein lies the reason why these lawsuits have not gone anywhere. But nobody's fooled. Well, ok, maybe you are.
Yes, that was the goal. But the statute expressly allows for that goal: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11374.
> USAID, if anything, did plenty of good. I've seen it up close.
There was a time when it did that, yes. But it began as a State Department front to interfere in the politics of third world countries and ultimately returned to such activities. There's a reason Mexico's President, who hates Trump, supported shutting it down: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-musk-unexpected-ally-push-shu... ("During a press conference on Tuesday, Sheinbaum voiced support for shutting down USAID, criticizing the agency's role in funding organizations she described as working against Mexican interests.").
I'm deeply familiar with USAID. My dad worked for USAID contractors and my family came to the U.S. on an H1 visa from such a job. USAID did some great projects in Bangladesh. But it probably killed more people in the long run through political interference than it helped. USAID was one of the last bastions of Anglo-Protestants in the US, along with the CIA. Extremely upright, orderly, admirable people. I'd love to live in a country run entirely by USAID people. But, like the CIA, they deeply misunderstand third world people. Their Puritan universalism made them completely blind to the unique political requirements of the third world. And that caused major problems whenever they became involved in "democracy promotion" (i.e. political interference).
> Creative interpretation of the rules and using judges bought and paid for and installed on dubious grounds as ways to force through things that in any other administration would have you hollering
I've been on HN since the Obama administration, and you won't find a single post from me defending federal bureaucratic privilege under any administration. I simply do not believe that the bureaucracy is a branch of government in and of itself. The federal bureaucracy is not in our constitution--it is a European import from admirers of the Prussian bureaucracy: https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-german-stamp-on-wilsons-a....
Is there anything that you won't twist to justify your hero's actions?
The hypocrisy on display here is off the scale.
you'd hope that an internal insurrection against the United States would not be so ragingly popular. and part of the reason it's let slide, is so poorly seen as what it is is because of "elections have consequences". it's bad.
49.8% of people voted for "this". After he disavowed Project 2025 which was a bit of a boogeyman prospect.
But, turns out, yes, he was Mr 2025. He also didn't care at all about affordability, medical costs (big promises of reproductive care access for example), or anything else. He elected himself to ally with dictators and foreign powers, to rip up and destroy the government.
We'll see but I don't think the people voted for this. And I don't think that one election entitles you to usurp the power of the purse from Congress, to use the FCC for jawboning, to use the DOJ as a puppet, to go after non-violent student protestors, to... It just goes on and on.
The people who did vote for this have been lied to by the Republican controlled media. The powell memorandum is real, and these people have been sold lies. It's almost a miracle that the truth is just so in the face of the lies that the propaganda lies sold to tear down and destroy the USA are going to be so evidently false that even huge swarths of red America won't be able to keep their head in the sand and slumber through another round of billionaire insurrection with the same ease they've supported it for for decades.
We don't get to just tear everything down because of one election.
Get and stay engaged in elections to prevent this. Norms and laws are only as powerful as the people in power.
GOP voters will somehow find the sex trafficking cabal in the non-existent basement of a pizza parlor and Obama's illuminati connections but when asked to connect Trump to P2025 it's, "he said he hasn't read it, case closed."
> also didn't care at all about affordability, medical costs
If only the 2020 money printer or the ACA "repeal and replace" that never happened could have warned us of this.
> ally with dictators and foreign powers
Kim, Putin, MBS... all his best friends/financiers before 2024.
> We'll see but I don't think the people voted for this.
They either voted for this or they can't be bothered to use recent memory to inform their voting decisions.
> I don't think that one election entitles you to usurp the power of the purse from Congress...
For some, he's exactly the president to land these questions in front of the Supreme Court, whose majority loves unitary executive and hates stare decisis. For others, he's allowed to try without consequence because SCOTUS declared presidential actions to have absolute immunity.
Elections (and referenda) do indeed have consequences.
It is however perfectly reasonable to look further up the causal chain and say "propaganda influences elections".
I voted Remain, and it's not entirely fair to say that all pro-Brexiters were racist, but the racists did certainly vote that way.
And the American people elected Trump and gave him both houses. There is very, little that can be done until his term is up. Norms mean nothing when you re-elect the guy famous for creating the world of alternative facts.
But also the voters voted for Trump to execute the laws passed by Congress. Which law said get rid of USAID?
The country is run by literal 90-year-olds deferring to whoever is against the other party.
^^^ This right here. In nearly every other job, you refuse to do your job (or worse yet, do the opposite of your job while "on the clock" at work), you're pretty much instantly fired, and sometimes (depending on the severity of your violation) you're even prosecuted.
He won at a time where the incumbent bias was like -10. He won the same reason Biden won in 2020; by not being the guy in charge.
https://youtu.be/zhsmHxo0nvE
When undocumented temporary-employee friends of Trump allies do whatever they want: This is fine.
they are, in all likelihood, foreign agents or acting on behalf of them.
If the GOP loses big in the midterms, we might finally see MAGA and the GOP turn on each other in an internecine frenzy.
You misspelled "complicit."
I wonder if Musk's team is using AI to find loopholes in laws he can abuse.
I know their tendancy to have wiring faults could certainly stand to be improved but jeez, that's a bit harsh
We need to fully destroy the notion the DOJ isn’t independent, and make a number of changes that bring us back to having a modern country.
HN doesn't have the kind of filters that the big social media platforms do, either.
Also USAID existing prevented NGOs to have too much local political power and the corruption that goes with it.
My opinion is that overall, USAID was a net positive, although in some specific cases it wasn't.
> A rise in instability abroad also creates a national-security risk for the U.S., Wright adds. Yemen—once a major USAID recipient, with $768 million worth of aid flowing into the country in 2024—is also home to the Houthis, an Iran-backed militant group that controls much of the country’s north and has been designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. As USAID funding disappears, support for the rebels is only likely to grow, he says. “Iran can continue to finance rebellions like the Houthis,” says Wright. “These second- and third-order effects might be even more consequential to the U.S. than the direct effects.”
* https://time.com/article/2026/05/15/usaid-shutdown-rise-glob...
* Analysis: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aeh7122
Or: Iran was supporting them already, but more people joined up because they were more desperate because the alternative (aid) had gone away.
The quality/quantity of support from Iran may not even have changed, but rather people's willingness to accept it.
I have, luckily, read a personal account of the logistical assistance that a USAID contractor had [0]. Doug Muir wrote about improving customs practices in Rwanda and training locals to take over for him. Improving, in this case, means standardizing inspections of trade goods to decrease holding time.
[0] https://crookedtimber.org/2025/03/08/usaid-my-next-to-last-p...
Also declassified files about mkultra and mknaomi mentioned USAID but I didn't read the specifics so it might not be that bad.
But yeah, I've never read the book you're talking about, but USAID usefulness wasn't so much in medicine and food (which are still important), but in organisational, logistics and administrative support to NGOs that really increases their effectiveness, and especially small NGOs like libraries without borders or OLSF( my cousin directed this one for a few years, that's how I know how useful USAID was)
This reminds me of the standard USA tech startup model, where you do something useful to get the users, while secretly exploiting them.
was purposely left to rot in warehouses instead of being distributed
six months ago the NY Times documented half a million deaths attributable to the destruction of USAID
by now it's easily a million, slow-motion murdered
may you never suffer to death like those million that could have been spared
NYT has no such reporting because it was reporting from ProPublica. In a series of (Pulitzer-prize finalist) articles they estimated about 700,000:
* https://www.propublica.org/series/the-end-of-aid
* https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/brett-murphy-and-anna-mar...
An analysis in The Lancet estimates that by 2030 as many as 14 million people could die, including 4.5 million children under age 5:
* https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
A recent article in Science found that after aid was shutdown there was an increase in violence in various regions where it was previously present:
* https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aeh7122
https://programme.aids2026.org/Abstract/Abstract/?abstractid...
I guess someone should look into that
this seems to have a lot of pretty concrete data. Which do you disagree with in particular?
If you judge things based on whether they have had a net positive effect on the world, you'll find that both yourself and USAID are in the same category.
[0] https://www.impactcounter.com/dashboard?view=table&sort=proj...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
I used to think that, but given how things unfolded I'm pretty convinced it was never intended to be anything more than a slash-and-burn purge of "DEI" and "disloyal" gov employees combined with a taxpayer-data-heist.
No. A bunch of kids are not going to be able to come in and improve a system they do not understand the least. Government can be improved, but its not a 1 or 2 year program, it will need deep, proper understanding. There is no lack of "smarts", these kids have nothing to contribute. There is lack of time and mandate.
Chesterton's Fence is no joke.
I know it sounds extreme, but this is my takeaway.
Tech billionaires have a twisted view of the world. They openly talk about how US and Europe is lagging behind in birth rate compared to developing nations. They openly encourage people to create more babies. Conversely, while they don't openly vouch for it, DOGE and the gutting of USAID has directly resulted in higher child mortality in developing nations.