Trump Reorganization Becomes Chaotic

By Gregory Simpkins

The first two weeks of the second administration of US President Donald Trump were chaotic to say the least. A wave of executive orders were signed and executive actions were taken – only for some to be short-circuited by the court system and maneuvering by tariff targets.

The apparent two main reasons for this whirlwind of actions and statements is first that Trump is in his second and final term in office and will at some point be considered a lame duck – a politician with a limited time in office and thus waning power to influence actions. From a political standpoint, that is understandable, but from a governing standpoint, it easily becomes disorganized.

In his haste to achieve goals while he still has public and political support, Trump, issuing a stop-work order on government spending, is assuming spending powers seemingly beyond those given to the executive branch and bypassing the Congressional role in deciding on the level and direction of government spending.

The second cause for disorganization is that Elon Musk, head of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is looking purely at the dollars and cents of government and doesn’t appear to recognize its necessary nuances. Musk seems determined to rack up the largest amount of savings from government cuts without considering the human costs of such actions.

For example, a government-wide suspension of funding has dubious legality when imposed suddenly. The Morning Dispatch reported on February 4 that a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Office of Management and Budget’s attempted freeze on the disbursement of federal grants, loans, and other financial assistance.

The order came as an earlier administrative stay preventing the White House directive from taking effect expired at 5 p.m. on February 3.

The Trump administration’s move could run afoul of the Constitution “by interfering with Congress’s appropriation of federal funds,” Judge Loren AliKhan wrote in the 30-page opinion, adding that the executive’s effort “attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it.”

Moreover, it is logistically and personally impractical. What’s supposed to happen to the contractors with personnel in the field working on approved contracts? Do they come home while investigations take place? Do they continue to get paid while waiting?

Having managed government contracted programs myself, I can tell you that rented space on the ground and local hires would pose problems if you suspend payments for months at a time. In some cases, you could be in breach of contract for failing to pay rents and other contracted costs.

As for local employees, it isn’t as if there are routinely unemployment payments for being laid off, so their families (including extended family) would suffer in the meantime.

When I was at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), I heard some officials, speaking about initiatives such as Prosper Africa, favoring dollar amounts of projects over the potential for job creation in African countries. Hiking the dollar amount of revenue moves the needle as they say and makes such efforts look more successful.

Being a businessman, Musk seems to be of a similar mind in his attack on USAID except he is hunting government savings. Billions of dollars flow through that agency, and in fact, some funding from USAID goes to other government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

So immediately shutting down USAID has an impact beyond just that headquarters building being shut down.

Unfortunately, a major point apparently being ignored by the administration and those who support their determination to shutter USAID is the loss of soft power, which is the ability to help people in other countries to create a favorable impression of the United States

The Danger in Shutting Down All Spending

The majority of direct USAID funding over the past several years has been devoted to health and thus is considered humanitarian aid. Musk is focusing on questions concerning development aid being misspent.

He claims to have found evidence that federal employees were ordered to process payments even if the recipient had a dubious record. However, health funding saves lives, and without it some people, such as victims of HIV-AIDS, will find that the original medicines will no longer work even if you restore them weeks later.

The Associated Press reported on February 3 that in the space of a few weeks, much of the USAID was dismantled – work and spending ordered stopped, leadership and staff gutted by furloughs, firings and disciplinary leaves, and the website taken offline. Lawmakers said the agency’s computer servers were carted away.

Trump told reporters Monday that shutting down USAID “should have been done a long time ago.” Asked whether he needs Congress to approve such a measure, the president said he did not think so. On this, Trump has a short memory.

In 2017, Trump tried to cut funding for the State Department and USAID, proposing a 28 percent reduction as part of his first budget proposal. A Republican-controlled Congress summarily rejected Trump’s requested cuts – deeming international aid too important to U.S. foreign policy and humanitarian relief efforts – and Capitol Hill lawmakers continued to do so for each appropriations cycle of the first Trump administration.

Republicans have slim majorities in the House and Senate, and it is unlikely that a majority of both houses of Congress would support ending USAID. Even merging it into the State Department would be problematic since it has been my experience that embassies make decisions on program countries based on the need to ensure diplomatic harmony – in some cases even when such decisions violate established standards.

Pressing such an issue on Republican members now could speed up the time in which some would reject administration actions.

According to the Wall Street Journal (February 3), President Trump said there were curbs in place to prevent Elon Musk from doing anything in the government without the White House’s blessing, responding to growing confusion about who was overseeing Musk’s push to dismantle multiple agencies.

Trump described Musk’s role as advisory. “Elon can’t do – and won’t do – anything without our approval and we’ll give him the approval where appropriate.
Where not appropriate, we won’t,” Trump said.

However, Musk doesn’t seem at this point to have the same understanding of his position. Democrats have tried to drive a wedge between Trump and Musk by calling the DOGE leader “President Musk” in an effort to appeal to the President’s well-known ego.

Ironically, this may cause him to be more reluctant to quickly take action to rein in Musk. Additionally, he gave Musk a promise to allow him to energetically cut government spending.

With Trump himself saying that USAID should be eliminated, actions already have been taken to make that view a reality.

The USAID headquarters has been blocked to entrance, not only by employees (who largely worked offsite anyway), but also members of Congress. The agency website can be restored, and the computer servers can be brought back. Things could be put back in place in relatively short order, but there is no indication of interest in doing so.

Communication from the administration varies, the White House spokesperson says humanitarian aid is not affected, but the harsh language from Trump and Musk indicates a willingness to end the agency and its operations. So, what does this mean for the non-development assistance?

Over the years of its operation, there have been troubling issues found in USAID operations, but some conservatives believe the agency goes far beyond errors in judgement or mismanagement to intentionally corrupt practices. If that also is the view of the administration, then the investigation likely will turn up sufficient evidence to confirm their view.

Unfortunately, a major point apparently being ignored by the administration and those who support their determination to shutter USAID is the loss of soft power, which is the ability to help people in other countries to create a favorable impression of the United States. This is in opposition to hard power: sanctions, the use of the dollar to punish countries that violate international law and even military action in drastic cases.

Our nation has long used soft power to create friends within the international community. Hard power will not do that. So, if USAID will be no more, where will soft power come from and which agency will utilize it?

Gregory Simpkins, a longtime specialist in African policy development, is the Principal of 21st Century Solutions. He consults with organizations on African policy issues generally, especially in relating to the U.S. Government. He further acts as a consultant to the African Merchants Association, where he advises the Association in its efforts to stimulate an increase in trade between several hundred African Diaspora small and medium enterprises and their African partners.