Keep sight of the forest while looking at the trees

Details matter, so does the big picture

In my last two posts, I shared a possible organizational future for the US Agency for Global Media and its networks, including the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. In the second, I called out the ignorance of the comments from co-President Elon Musk and Ric Grenell.¹ Both focused on the agency and its components rather than how it might fit into whatever is this administration’s approach to foreign policy and national security.

I’ll keep it short because I have something far more important to do—my dissertation—but I want to get this out there.

The likely attack on USAGM and the ongoing attack on the US Agency for International Development do not adhere to the Project 2025 handbook, and they go against Trump’s mercantilist and interventionist foreign policy.

The introduction to the USAGM section has this (p235):

The mission is noble, but the execution is lacking. To fulfill its mission, USAGM should also aim to present the truth about America and American policy— not parrot America’s adversaries’ propaganda and talking points.

The section on USAID opens with this accurate assessment (p253):

In alignment with U.S. national security interests, the agency promotes American prosperity through initiatives that expand markets for U.S. exports; encourage innovation; create a level playing field for U.S. businesses; and support more stable, resilient, and democratic societies that are less likely to act against American interests and more likely to respect family, life, and religious liberty.

We see co-president Musk’s policy choices at work with the attacks on USAID and likely attacks on USAGM, not Trump’s. It’s not that Trump has a coherent plan, but he did announce people to take positions in USAGM. Musk’s business interests don’t include the US farmers USAID buys from or the people abroad benefiting from USAID’s primary projects (which ultimately benefit the US). Musk is more likely to side with the forces that create the conditions for USAID to step in.² The same is true for USAGM.

The attacks also go against the longstanding and current interests of many House and Senate Republicans. At the very least, both agencies help deny or mitigate China’s aggressive foreign policy that works against US interests, including, as far as we’ve seen, Trump’s.³

To wrap this up, I’m aware that my comments about USAGM, which I know, and USAID, which I interacted with but don’t know well at all, are inconsequential because this administration has no strategy or concept of a strategy or basic principles either for reorganizing government or conducting foreign policy. It does not care about the rule of law, and the Republican majority in the House and Senate is okay with that. Put plainly, they lack the foresight and intellectual curiosity to see the value of USAGM and USAID to US foreign policy and national security. The funny thing is, for all its abhorrent positions, ahistorical takes, and sophomoric thoughts, Project 2025 understood at least some of the value of these agencies.

The administration, both Musk’s and Trump’s (and whatever other faction is likely to surface), don’t care about our ability to influence people and policies abroad in support of our foreign policy and national security because their experience is public opinion is easily manipulated. Their role models abroad are the autocrats in Russia, China, Hungary, and North Korea (not not in Iran) who attempt to manage what their people are allowed to know and discuss.

What happens next?

I have no idea. We must consider the forest as we discuss the trees. In the case of USAGM and USAID, the forest is being indiscriminately burned down; it’s not being “cut down” since that would imply forethought to reuse the resources. Many, like you, dear reader, lament the situation because you understand yesterday and past tomorrow. The administration will also regret their decisions. Eventually. And, we know that when they do, they will pin blame elsewhere.

By the way, how does any of this help the price of eggs? How’s the Ukraine war going? Where is the concept of a plan for healthcare? Are the government subsidies paid to Musk’s companies also affected? Are you not entertained?

That’s it for now.

1. A friend suggested prime minister is a better title for Musk. A prime minister suggests a separate parliamentary approval, which we have since the Republican majorities in the House and Senate acquiesce to his activities, which are variously unlawful to awful while shrouded in secrecy and disinformation. I prefer co-president because a) it is more relatable to the US public, and b) it properly suggests Musk is conducting presidential – and extra-presidential – duties alongside Trump. (Let’s set aside that “alongside” implies Trump understands and is fully aware of what Musk is doing, his public comments notwithstanding.)

2. In the end, people voted for the face-eating leopards. On social media, it’s interesting to see people complain about “the government” suddenly halting this program or the other their business and livelihood relied on. In the instances I’m thinking of, the person apparently cannot, or is too ignorant, to state that the Trump administration is putting them in jeopardy by the haphazard cuts, or that the programs were part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or some other Biden-passed legislation.

3. The African Broadcasting Networks idea revealed in the last post is fundamentally about denying Chinese adverse activities across Africa. This reminds me of a program the Department of the Interior ran to mitigate Chinese activities in Africa. DoI sent and helped train game wardens across Africa. How is this relevant? Because China pays criminal gangs to slaughter protected wildlife to provide powders, body parts, and trinkets from these animals for Chinese markets. Suffice it to say, these gangs aren’t law-abiding organizations. They cause and rely on instability to conduct their criminal activities.