#foreign aid

*update for the reading comprehension lacking: obviously I don’t mean this literally in the sense of being the reason why groups like USAID exist — of course it originated as a form of soft power, designed to improve the US’s standing abroad. But the effect of these programs as they are practiced in 2025 is reparative, for all the reasons previously stated. There’s nothing so far in the notes that disputes this (the one that seems to is contradicted by their own sources, lol, which reveal the info they’re conveniently leaving out to further their particular narrative) and plenty from people actually involved with aid that backs it up — because there just isn’t any coherent anti imperialism that is okay with millions of people in imperialized countries dying of preventable diseases. You don’t actually care about them if you think they are that disposable. No amount of buzzwords can bring them back.

fuck everyone who voted for Trump, and particularly fuck everyone who said it didn't matter who won, who said there was some higher point to prove by having Democrats lose, fuck everything, this ocean of blood and human suffering is all your fault and it a far and just universe you would all burn in hell for it.

This is really what they fear. Just where has the money been going? Only about 1/3 ever reached Ukraine. Where’s the money?

We tested whether the abrupt shutdown of USAID led to increased conflict in the regions of Africa that had historically received the most support. Using geocoded data on USAID disbursements merged with detailed records of violent events, we applied a difference-in-differences design that compared conflict outcomes in subnational regions 10 months before and after the January 2025 shutdown, and between regions with varying levels of historical USAID exposure (disbursements in 2017 to 2020)... Regions that had received more aid per capita experienced relatively more conflict after the shutdown. In regions at the 75th percentile of exposure to aid from the United States, the withdrawal of USAID was associated with an approximately 6.5% greater probability of any conflict event as compared with that of regions with no aid from the United States. The probability of protests and riots was 10% greater, the number of conflict events increased by 10.6%, battle counts increased by 6.9%, and battle-related fatalities increased by 9.3%. Event-study analysis confirmed no preexisting differences in conflict trends between high- and low-exposure regions before the shutdown. Effects are of similar size, with a 12.3% relative increase in the number of conflict events. The effects also persist over time. Protests and riots responded immediately, whereas the effects on battles intensified over subsequent months. In addition, the effects of the aid withdrawal were substantially mitigated in countries with stronger, more inclusive political institutions... The abrupt withdrawal of USAID led to a significant and sustained increase in conflict across Africa’s most USAID-dependent regions. The findings demonstrate that large-scale, sudden aid cuts can destabilize fragile settings. A core mechanism that can explain this result is that the economic opportunity costs of violence drop faster than the rents over which groups compete. The mitigating role of inclusive institutions highlights the persistent vulnerability of regions with weak governance to humanitarian and economic shocks. These results have implications for the design and timing of changes in international aid.

ACLU advice for writing to your Critters: https://www.aclu.org/writing-your-elected-representatives