[natpalmer1776]

I'm somewhat ignorant on this subject (by design, my mental health cannot afford too much pondering on that which I cannot control)

but in this instance I can't help but wonder from a game theory standpoint, is there anything GAINED by affecting USAID in a way in which we clearly lose some (relatively small per your comment) amount of soft power?

That is to say, a perfectly played game would involve not making any sacrifices unless it was to gain some value or reduce some loss. What is gained (or not lost) here?

[Papazsazsa]

Two games: Domestic and Foreign

Domestic 'gain' is fiscal + political + transparency. USAID was pass-through where taxpayer dollars flowed to NGOs and contractors whose missions aligned with whatever administration or congressional bloc was in power – but with enough layers of separation to obscure the nature of the spending.

Foreign 'gain' is a move away from liberal internationalism to transactional bilateralism/resetting expectations wrt American largesse. We were being outbid everywhere anyway, and the org was ineffectively doing something DoS should be doing.

[6510]

Local producers cant compete with the aid (nor in trade). The same scheme China runs in the west. On the receiving end you not just stop development but you actively shut down what you had and forget how to do it.