According to the Washington Post, the White House made "wildly inaccurate claims about USAID spending." Not just inaccurate claims, which is what a legitimate "fact checker" might write, but wildly inaccurate claims, which is more of what an advocate for a particular point of view might say.
Not to worry, this article is from resident Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, whose Post biography notes his many honors and awards including the Sigma Delta Chi award (Society of Professional Journalists), in the category of fact-checking, the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting, the Literate Media award (for The Fact Checker), and the National Association for Media Literacy Education Premier Award. The Post even thought it noteworthy to highlight awards he did not win.
Naturally, the supporting choir of the perma-state came out in force to sing the praises of Kessler's withering "fact(ish) check."
Yeah, these RepubliCON fascists would lie about their wife's ... birthday?
The faithful NPCs received the message from WaPo, but that begs the question: How accurate was their "fact check" in the first place?
Well, Kessler starts by highlighting how he utterly misses the point. In fact, there's a lot of that in this piece, so I guess it's good he properly sets up expectations from the beginning.
After a brief recitation of the claims made against USAID, he helpfully points out how a sum of money that would, were it given to a typical American family, triple their life savings is in fact "low."
The news release then listed 12 examples, plucked from the websites of right-wing media. But the numbers cited — as low as $32,000 — hardly justify the claim that these are "massive sums" of money.
That's a massive sum of money to most Americans, Mr. Kessler.
He's not done yet.
The White House identified only about $12 million in grants — one of which was $6 million — though one allegation vaguely claimed 'hundreds of millions of dollars.' Upon inspection, that turned out to be from 2005 to 2008.
"Upon inspection," Professor Fact Checker notes, those hundreds of millions of dollars, were over three years.
He's suggesting that these amounts are in the greater scheme of things, rounding errors not understanding that that is part of the point. Hundreds of millions of dollars is a lot, it doesn't matter what you compare it to, and if what you are comparing it to is monstrously larger, maybe that is the problem.
This portion of the argument goes where it always goes, the fact that they are much smarter than you.
According to surveys, many Americans have a misguided view of how much money the United States devotes to foreign aid. Polls consistently reveal that Americans believe that it is about 25 percent of the federal budget — and that a majority believe it should be more like 10 percent. In reality, foreign aid is less than 1 percent of the budget.
They trot this one out every time, the better to luxuriate in their superiority.
The numbers he cites from the survey appear to be solid, and confirmed by other surveys, but he's cherry picking here leaving out a very important finding, and a very relevant one to this piece. These pull quotes are all from the link he himself provided:
A January 26, 2011, Gallup poll found 59 percent of people favoring cuts to foreign aid...
A January 25, 2011, CNN/Opinion Research poll found a strong 71 percent of people want to reduce the size of government. When questioned about specifics, foreign aid again topped the list, with 81 percent favoring cuts.
A January 12, 2011, Ipsos/Reuters poll, found that 75 percent of people say foreign aid should be cut...
The piece explains this as being a product of people's overestimate of the amount we spend on foreign aid, but is that really it?
Isn't the obvious answer that Americans don't want the government sending their money to people who are not Americans?
Before he dives into the "wildly inaccurate claims," he takes one more stab at dismissing the resistance to foreign aid.
About two-thirds of U.S. foreign assistance funds in fiscal year 2018 were obligated to U.S.-based entities, CRS said. For instance, food aid must be purchased in the United States and by law must be shipped on U.S. carriers. With the exception of some aid given to Israel, all military aid must be used to purchase U.S. military equipment and training — meaning foreign military aid in reality is a jobs program in the United States.
This only makes sense if you don't understand how economics works.
Yes, we are recycling the funds back into the economy, and that's better than not doing that, however we are also still sending the things we bought with that money out of the country.
Let's get to fact-checking the fact checks.
Number 1
'$1.5 million to "advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces and business communities'"
This is mostly accurate.
Mostly = completely.
Still, he doesn't go down without a fight, and this is where his bias is most evident, something he doesn't appear aware that he's doing.
Your job is to check the facts. You checked this one, and it was true. That's where, as a fact checker, you stop. Your job is not to go on to justify government programs you favor.
USAID has tried to improve civil society in Serbia as interest groups could advocate with the government on reforms. LGBTQ people faced discrimination, so one area of focus was ensuring acceptance of Belgrade Pride, an annual parade that previously was canceled after threats of violence. The 2024 parade was peaceful, and the government is discussing legislation on same-sex partnerships.
We get it, you think that USAID program was a good one. But how are we supposed to take your impartiality seriously when you weigh in with your own irrelevant opinions?
Number 2.
'$70,000 for production of a ‘DEI musical' in Ireland'
This is wrong. This was a State Department grant, not USAID. In 2022, the U.S. ambassador hosted an event featuring Grammy-winning folk duo Francesco Turrisi and Rhiannon Giddens, along with other Irish and American musicians.
This is not the take-down he thinks it is.
It's wrong because it was the State Department and not USAID? Is that really the point? Inaccurate, maybe, and I agree we should all strive to be accurate. But the mission of DOGE is not to go after USAID, it's to identify spending the current administration, democratically elected, disfavors.
Our superiors supposedly value context (as you will soon see), but only when it benefits their argument.
They lean pretty heavily on this, "no, it was really the State Department," argument as you will see later as well.
Number 3.
'$2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam'
This is wrong. This was for more than electric vehicles.
Yes, indeed, this grant was for far more than electric vehicles.
I swear, the guy is not just accidentally shooting himself in the foot, he's sighting in his scope, checking the wind, and carefully aiming.
The fund was part of a larger effort to bring green energy to a country that is one of the world's fastest-growing per capita greenhouse gas emitters. China has a head start on green energy, but the United States has sought to keep Vietnam out of China's orbit, so the program was intended to boost the U.S. brand in green energy.
It gets better. You know what you find when you click through that "larger effort" link Kessler helpfully provides? This little nugget that Kessler appears to have been disinterested in.
VIETNAM LOW EMISSION ENERGY PROGRAM II (V-LEEP II)
2020 - 2025 | IMPLEMENTER: DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP | BUDGET: $36,251,254
The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) Vietnam Low Emission Energy Program II (V-LEEP II) supports Vietnam's transition to a clean, secure, and market-based energy sector.
INCREASING DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED ENERGY SYSTEMS
The project works with the Government of Vietnam (GVN) to mobilize private sector investment in the deployment of advanced energy systems, such as rooftop solar and electric vehicles.
So, yes, technically, the $2.5 million in electric vehicles was wrong, but only because the right number was 14.5 times the amount and included money for rooftop solar panels!
Number 4
'$47,000 for a ‘transgender opera' in Colombia'
This is wrong. USAID did not fund this. The White House appears to be referring to a $25,000 State Department grant to Universidad De Los Andes in Bogotá to stage an opera, 'As One,' composed by Laura Kaminsky, an American.
Again, it's not wrong, it's inaccurate. But you can't claim it's "wrong." It was funded by the State Department (which by the way is closely tied to USAID, and in fact USAID was recently absorbed by it) and it was for less money (the rest came from unidentified non-federal sources).
Kessler again wades into opinion territory rather than sticking to the fact check, and while extolling the work as "a well-known opera in the U.S., highly acclaimed by audiences," never mentions that it really was a transgender opera in Columbia that American taxpayers paid for.
You can support as many transgender operas as you like, just don't make me pay for it, a general sentiment Kessler misses over and over.
Number 5
'$32,000 for a ‘transgender comic book' in Peru'
This is wrong. USAID did not fund this, and it was not specifically transgender. Instead, the grant says the State Department provided $32,000, under the guise of public diplomacy, to Peru's Education Department 'to cover expenses to produce a tailored-made comic, featured an LGBTQ+ hero to address social and mental health issues.'
Okay, it was inaccurate, but "wrong" in terms of what people find objectionable?
American taxpayers are still paying for a comic book that pushes an activist agenda in a foreign country.
Number 6
'$2 million for sex changes and ‘LGBT activism' in Guatemala'
This is misleading, as it suggests USAID arranged for sex changes.
And that's crazy talk! Sort of.
The three-year grant to Asociación Lambda, a Guatemala LGBTIQ+ organization, was to 'strengthen trans-led organizations to deliver gender-affirming health care, advocate for improved quality and access to services, and provide economic empowerment opportunities.'
Kessler then helpfully points out that gender-affirming care could mean a lot of things!
The World Health Organization defines gender-affirming health care as 'any single or combination of a number of social, psychological, behavioral or medical (including hormonal treatment or surgery) interventions designed to support and affirm an individual's gender identity.'
A very helpful definition, and one that just so happens to completely contradict a quote Kessler provides from a former USAID official.
Officials at Asociación Lambda could not be reached, but a former senior USAID official who worked on LGBTIQ+ programs for the agency said, 'I regularly went to the Hill and communicated on the record to note that for USAID, gender-affirming care does not include surgeries, hormone replacement therapies or any other medical interventions.'
See! An unnamed former official totally says it wasn't for surgeries.
Number 7
'$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt'
This is wrong. This initiative was launched in the first Trump administration to 'increase educational opportunities and strengthen the livelihoods of the people of North Sinai' ... There is no mention of funding tourism.
Well, the link Kessler provides to what the White House was referencing does indeed not mention tourism.
You know what does mention tourism? A big fat link on that very same page (these are archived USAID pages) that takes you to this.
Overview
Egypt's antiquities are both a part of its cultural heritage and an opportunity to create jobs and raise incomes. Since the mid-1990s, USAID has provided over $100 million in assistance to conserve monuments and masterpieces spanning from Pharaonic times to the late Ottoman period. USAID focuses on both restoring sites as well as boosting the tourism sector's role as an engine of economic growth and employment.
Kessler is no longer shooting himself in the foot, he is pulling pins and dropping hand grenades on it.
The next five are more of the same, with one "dubious," one "lacks context (NOW he's interested in context)," and two "misleadings," all pretty weak tea.
He concludes with a final "false" about USAID money being used for cultivating poppies in Afghanistan, and yet then describes exactly how that happened.
USAID was the lead U.S. agency for implementing alternative development projects, modeled after a more successful effort in Colombia, but the report documented how conflicts among agencies and with allies hampered the effort.
In other words, we ended up helping them cultivate poppies. Perhaps realizing the claim is not actually "false," he meekly concludes that,
It's a stretch to now, years later, accuse USAID of helping the Taliban.
A "stretch."
Okay. That's what partisans do.
It's not what "fact checkers" should do.
This piece was not a fact check, it was an opinion piece. The White House could have been more careful in vetting the claims, and should be, rather than going with the hot take, but calling the claims "wildly inaccurate" is, well, wildly inaccurate.
I know that because Kessler, however unwittingly, told me.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
