When people’s homes were flooded during hurricane Harvey back in 2017 many had to tear out sheetrock and get down to the studs in their homes. They removed carpet, wood flooring, appliances and furniture that were no longer safe to use. Still, not everything had to go. It was possible to renew dishes, cooking utensils and even most clothing simply by washing the water soaked items. It took a great deal of work to remove what was not salvageable but in the vast majority of cases there was no need to tear the whole house down and rebuild from the ground up. 

What happened in the aftermath of hurricane Harvey is a lesson for all situations and organizations. We realized that many of the drainage systems in the Houston area were inadequate and in need of updates. We took a hard look at the role of climate change in creating stronger and more destructive storms. We know that there is much that we need to do to make living in Houston sustainable for the future and efforts continue to be made. It takes time and study to be certain that we are doing the right things to improve the odds that our city will be safer in the future.

Some positive changes have already begun but others have been put on the back burner. We may even need to buy back certain neighborhoods that flood again and again even with relatively minor rain incidents. We know that there is still much to do but financing and having the will to be proactive still stall many efforts. Nonetheless we know that our investments in change must be purposeful.

This brings us to questions about the effectiveness of the many agencies of our federal government. Few of us would argue that there are countless problems that all too often never get addressed. There is nothing wrong with attempting to make our systems more efficient, but the process should be methodical and only considered after studying all aspects to determine both what is not working well and what is. It’s also important to determine which employees are critical for smooth transitioning once the adjustments are undertaken. 

So what is wrong with the DOGE efforts to modernize and streamline federal agencies? I will use the hack job being done to USAID as a cautionary example:

First, employees at USAID and other governmental agencies received emails encouraging them to voluntarily resign. Those who take the offer are supposedly eligible for eight months of salary and benefits. What is not said is that there is any kind of contract or guarantee that they will actually receive the payments as promised. Even worse is the fact that there is no attempt to determine which individuals are the best most knowledgeable employees. How efficient is it to end up with only those who choose to stay rather than encouraging the best and brightest employees to stay?

The amount of knowledge that will be lost in such a scheme is mind boggling. It would be akin to randomly losing teachers in a high school and ending up without anyone certified to teach Calculus or Chemistry. Everyone knows that any organization has key people who should be rewarded not encouraged to leave. Furthermore it is a well documented fact of organizations that a lack of differing opinions spells doom. There always need to be voices willing to speak up when disastrous decisions are about to be made. 

What has actually happened to USAID is that it has for all intents and purposes been shut down without much forethought of potential unintended consequences. Americans working in foreign countries are being told to leave their posts and come home immediately. Chaos and confusion are ruling the day without consideration of what each person in each place is actually doing to benefit the United States. A blanket indictment insinuates that USAID is not just worthless but possibly criminal. Those who have dedicated years of service to humanitarian efforts have no idea what their futures will be.  

So when did USAID begin and what is it’s purpose? 

In 1961, there was tension all over the world. Congress realized that some of the problem areas might respond more to humanitarian efforts than military might. USAID is an acronym for United States Agency for International Development. The main goal was to improve health and decrease poverty and hunger in places across the globe. This agency responds to famines, the residual effects of wars, outbreaks of disease. It also serves as a diplomatic tool and a way of defending freedoms. It feeds more people across the globe than any other agency in the world. It produces goodwill far beyond its cost which represents only one percent of the total budget of the United States. There are Americans living and working and offering hope in places where drought and diseases have brought suffering to the populations. USAID brings hope where there might otherwise be none. Additionally American farmers enjoy an economic boost by providing the grain, beans and vegetables needed to feed the hungry. 

Ronald Reagan was such a proponent of USAID and the work it does that their offices are located in the Ronald Reagan building to honor him. President Reagan fully understood the importance of humanitarian efforts in producing goodwill. He believed that such diplomacy was far better than war, aggression, or military might in shaping a more peaceful world. 

The tragedy of USAID is an example of what we may expect from DOGE attempts to improve the delivery of services from the various agencies. I am incredibly concerned about the future chaos that will ultimately affect us all, not just federal workers and struggling countries. As Americans with a voice we should be demanding a stop to this questionable and possibly illegal behavior before our entire system descends into chaos. It may be okay to ruin a social media site overnight but doing the same to the functioning of important agencies in our nation will have dire consequences for us all. It needs to stop now!

Contact you representatives, contact the White House, let your voices be heard while democracy is still ours. Don’t just sit back and allow unelected individuals to tear it all down!