Lol you clearly have no idea what a 'neo-conservative' is or their history.

Neo-Conservatives were a branch of Democrat wark-hawks who wanted to police the world, that were upset about the pacifist attitude of the Democrats at the time - they emerged in the 60's and managed to largely take control of the Republican party moving forward, peaking under George W Bush.

Their founding principal was "Peace Through Strength" and have a strong belief in worldwide interventionism.

If you think the 'MAGA' / 'Trump' party is neo-conservative you literally just are ignoring the entire history, the power struggle (which Trump won) to retake the party from the Neo-Cons, and the fact that the trump admin is largely isolationist and opposed to being the world police.

Don't get me wrong there are still some neo-cons in office and with roles in his admin, but the republican infighting can be summarized as neocon vs MAGA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoconservatism

Words mean things. The MAGE/America First party is focused on non-interventionism, advocate against regime change abroad, with a focus on America and it's interest rather than the endless wars.

You can debate the success or merit of that approach I guess, but the Neo-Cons are very happy to provide foreign aid as it is core to their ideology. They tend to do it via NED while the left uses USAID more (although both use both, but they each have lean in one direction).

Just for fun, I just tried this little experiment you can try to: " CoPilot: Can you rationally describe Trump as a neocon?

CoPilot: No, it would not be accurate to rationally state that Donald Trump is a neoconservative (neocon). Here are some key differences:

Foreign Policy: Neocons: Advocate for interventionist foreign policies, promoting democracy and regime change abroad. Trump: Emphasizes “America First” policies, focusing on non-interventionism, reducing military engagements abroad, and prioritizing domestic issues.

Military Engagement: Neocons: Support maintaining strong international alliances and a significant military presence globally.

Trump: Criticized NATO, praised authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin, and negotiated troop withdrawals from conflict zones like Afghanistan.

Economic Policies: Neocons: Generally support free trade and globalization.

Trump: Advocates for economic nationalism, including tariffs and renegotiating trade deals to favor American interests.

These differences highlight that Trump’s policies and ideology do not align with neoconservative principles. If you have any more questions or need further details, feel free to ask! "

[flagged]

By the look of it, they were investigating how Ukraine use of Starlink provided to them. You make a great journalist. lol.

Ironically USAID might help Americans more than foreign folks, and disproportionately Trump’s own supporters - if the money is being spent to buy American products, particularly food, that is then shipped overseas.

> overhead and ideological reprogramming

I despair at the thought process that crams these two things together.

2.5% overhead would be really good. Most charities don’t come close.

“Ideological reprogramming,” whatever that actually means, would be completely different.

And you have the proof for these numbers, or are they pulled out of Elon's behind?

I didn't mean it too seriously. Just with regard to how one point in the ideology is about governments being small and how DOGE is at least in rhetoric trying to fire federal employees en masse.

libertarian

/ ˌlɪbəˈtɛərɪən /

noun

    1) an idiot

> refused to pause spending when Trump lawfully asked all agencies to stop spending

How do you imagine any agency to "stop spending"? Are salaries not to be paid? Are contracts not to be fulfilled? Are rents not to be paid?

This seems like a criticism of the CIA, not USAID, no?

> The decision to enlist Afridi was probably made by the CIA station chief in Islamabad and was passed on to the Counterterrorism Center back in Langley.

I didn't bring this up because it would be controversial on this website. I think USAID is a tool for advancing US geopolitical interests aims first and foremost and I would like it to be abolished as well. But someone like Musk wanting it to be shuttered doesn't make sense because these organisation in one way or another advance the interests of US businesses and he would benefit from that as well.

I think that any sufficiently big organization has done bad things, this alone shouldn't be enough to close an agency.

However, I'm sure Cia has done, does, and will do much worse things than usaid

Vaccination campaigns are “crazy and bad” because they might be hijacked by the CIA?

I think you’ve identified the wrong culprit there buddy.

Funny thing is that kind of government foreign aid is the kind of soft-power over smaller countries thing that right-wingers politicians love, or at least used to. Similar to the BS that China pulls with the belt and road initiative (but probably not as bad in most instances).

Basically give/loan money, get international political support back. Use political support to bully international institutions (UN, WTO, WHO, etc) to do what you want.

I guess soft-power is not enough anymore, they want all the power.

Is that something they did, or is it something you imagine they did because you’re too credulous of right-wing propaganda?