For many Americans who for years have been aware of USAID’s involvement in international corruption and regime change (implicated, along with other U.S. agencies, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, which last year brought onto its board global blackguard Victoria Nuland), the recent explosion of information about the JFK-creation and its wider ties to propaganda campaigns and falsely-labeled “news” media come as additional confirmation of its existential insult to truth and our freedom.
And Donald Trump’s move to put on paid leave (not even to fire) approximately 9,706 of its 10,000 parasitic employees comes as a delightful piece of news.
But to others – who, like the USAID leeches, derive their paychecks off our backs – just the meager idea of USAID being actively staffed by 294 is an affront. It’s inhuman, unkind, and, somehow, against the “rule of law.”
This, essentially, is what a U.S. District Court judge just claimed, as he commanded a “block” on Trump’s move to “sort-of” cut away lots of the USAID hive.
The New York Post reports that Judge Carl Nichols, of the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., has ordered a stay on Trump’s adjustment in that Executive Branch agency, a stay that will last until February 15.
“Nichols ordered the Trump administration to reinstate all USAID employees placed on administrative leave; barred any additional agency employees from being placed on leave; and ordered that no USAID employees in overseas posts be asked to return to the US on an ‘expedited timeline.’
The Trump administration had recalled virtually all foreign-based USAID employees earlier this week, giving them 30 days to accept government-paid transportation home unless they obtain an approved exception.”
Perhaps Judge Nichols and other boosters of the bureaucracy worried that if those USAID heroes came back to the U.S., they might have a harder time continuing to fund nearly 10 percent of the BBC budget, or nearly 90 percent of the Ukrainian media. And how can the “Land of the Free” not force its taxpayers to fund noble endeavors such as those - even as the U.S. Deep State accuses people like you and me of spreading "Russian propaganda"?
Luckily, Judge Nichols took our tax money to erect this stay to Trump’s order, so the spirit of America is saved.
Unless one bothers to read the Constitution, which not only doesn’t allow this agency to exist – especially since it was created by a John F. Kennedy Executive Order in 1961 – but also is a national rulebook that has as one of its philosophical underpinnings the principle that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for international skullduggery and propaganda…
Adds the Post:
“Nichols also ruled that all USAID employees ‘shall be given complete access to email, payment, and security notification systems.’
The judge’s ‘limited’ restraining order was first reported by Politico. Nichols, a Trump appointee, released his full order late Friday night.
He issued a preliminary injunction hearing date for Feb. 12.”
It is ironic that Politico should report on the controversy, since that “news outlet” got oodles of money from USAID, ostensibly for the super-special level of Politico subscriptions that cost a total of $44,000 over two years. As a result, one wonders how the Politico brass feel about Trump focusing attention on the waste and potential for influence between USAID and so-called “news” groups.
And a close look at USAID’s broad, fungus-like, spread around the globe inspires an observer to wonder at not just the media connections, but also the typical manner in which US bureaucracies burrow deep into our wallets, utilizing legalese, gaslighting, and emotion to perpetuate themselves, and, often, to expand.
“Federal unions had sued President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others in the administration on Thursday for moving to dismantle the agency and reorganize it.
Attorneys for the American Foreign Service Association and American Federation of Government Employees argued the layoffs could imperil workers stationed abroad as well as nongovernmental groups that rely on USAID funding.”
Did you sign on for this?
No.
And, sadly, as much as Americans are celebrating the prospect of mass layoffs at USAID, Donald Trump actually is not standing on principle.
He is not eliminating the agency.
“White House officials had reportedly moved to gut the agency’s more than 10,000-person workforce down to just 600 staff members focused on critical humanitarian or public health initiatives.
Around 500 employees at USAID had already been placed on leave and are likely to be recalled to their jobs, Nichols also noted following Friday’s hearing.”
In other words, despite there being absolutely nothing in the Constitution to allow for USAID, Donald Trump plans, in the end, to keep 600 staff members doing “humanitarian” activities that he and others might claim are laudable.
Related: Weekly Highlights: Leftist Media's Extreme Takes on Trump Policies
What would be more appropriate, and offer a learning opportunity for many Americans, would be for Trump to overtly state that he swore an oath to the Constitution, and, as a result, not only does he have a sworn duty to shut down USAID and all other blatantly unconstitutional agencies, he also has a sworn duty to disregard the judge’s stay.
This is a fundamental lesson in bedrock constitutional understanding. Because every governmental employee swears an oath to the U.S. Constitution, they, by extension, have sworn NOT to engage in unconstitutional activity.
On a "separation of powers" basis, Trump not only is free to, but is obligated to, disregard the judge's block and continue with his actions to dismantle the unconstitutional agency. The courts may issue as many stays as they want, but if a stay interferes with Trump’s duty to uphold the Constitution, he is supposed to disregard the court.
So, for example, if a previous Congress passed, and a previous President enforced, a statute to arrest all Japanese people and herd them into concentration camps, the new President would be duty bound not to the statute or a court order telling him how glorious the statute is, but to the Constitution, and he would be obligated not to enforce that statute.
Judges cannot write laws, and cannot enforce their own court orders. The Executive Branch enforces the statutes, and only is supposed to enforce constitutional statutes.
As a person sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, Trump is supposed to act accordingly, and his Executive Branch control of the bureaucracy requires him, not the courts, to execute only statutes that he deems constitutional. If the Congress doesn't like it, they have it in their power to impeach him.
Since revelations about USAID keep multiplying, Trump has plenty of political momentum behind him to proceed. But he also has the Constitution on his side, and that is what counts, here.
On the deepest level, contracts, union agreements, and anything else attached to USAID should not get in the way of seeing this clearly. This should not be a situation of “missing the forest for the trees.”
USAID and all other unconstitutional agencies must go, and Mr. Trump swore an oath to adhere to such principle.
Nibbling around the edges is not sufficient, and abiding by a judge whose ruling perpetuates more grievous unconstitutional activity is beneath anyone who takes that constitutional oath.
These are things we can hold onto as the battle ratchets up and desperate USAID parasites try everything they can to fight the reality that their agency is not warranted by the original vision of the Founders.