The UN and its bits and pieces are what happens when human nature has unconstrained access to virtue signaling and other people’s money. Its purpose, like many NGOs and non-profits of the progressive hue (see also Somali-run “care” agencies), is to fund itself and its growing ‘staff.’
It’s a crime family using legal means to extort billions for illicit gain. Action, if any, exists to expand the family and its funding. Downstream beneficiaries of the fraud then “fund,” the machine that keeps the grift alive with political “gifts.”
The system creates a growing army of ideologically captured individuals dependent on the money laundering scam, who must advocate for whatever keeps the laundromat operating.
Most government bureaucracies work this way, increasingly so the further left they lean. USAID was an example of that, inside the example of federal mission creep – every agency was doing it, and still does. DOGE and Trump exposed the tip of a much larger iceberg. It would take a decade and an iron will from Congress to reexpose and remove not just the rot but the judges who defend it.
No one expects this beyond reflexive or superficial acts. Politicians leaning into or with the wind then back will never drain the swamp, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. The same is true for cesspools like the UN. It launders other people’s money into an NGO machine no different than the one USAID used to feed progressive ground machines that enriched liberal players before any other marketed good. They exist to employ people at above-average salaries to oversee very little beyond the betterment of the lifestyles of their leadership. The Trump Administration has taken that attitude toward US tax dollar funding of UN “humanitarian aid” programs.
“It shifts U.S. funding of UN humanitarian work onto clearly defined, accountable, efficient, and hyper-prioritized funding mechanisms to ensure that every taxpayer dollar spent of humanitarian assistance both advances American national interests and achieves the greatest possible lifesaving impact.”
We’re proposing we spend less but ensure that less does more, presumably than the many billions more we spent previously to fund windbags, show-offs, and ne’er-do-wells whose “aid” organizations aided the organizations and not anyone they said they existed to help.
The State Department said the agreement requires the U.N. to consolidate humanitarian functions, cut bureaucratic overhead and address what it described as “ideological creep” inside aid agencies. U.S. officials argue the pledge preserves America’s commitment to life-saving aid while forcing greater efficiency and accountability in how taxpayer dollars are spent.
…
Under the agreement, U.S. funds will be placed into a centralized pool managed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), rather than distributed directly to individual agencies.
The 2 billion initial funding is a down payment on a promise of more, predicated (I assume) on whether the UN lives up to its end by cutting bureaucratic waste and creep.
Something similar might be helpful for federal funding to US states, particularly when it comes to aid delegated to programs with the word “care” in their titles. Democrats won’t like that because it is one of the many ways they launder your money to “groups,” who then help fund their campaigns. Objecting to it, however, puts a hitch in their “affordability” step. The more waste, fraud, and abuse they exose the ahrder it gets to ask people to walk to the polls and vote for you when 1) you keep objecting to cuts and contraints to end the fraud and 2) cutting the waste and fraud would make things more affordable and 3) the people commiting the fraud are donating to the campaigns of Democrats whose idea of affordable is another soul-sucking agency that slows cost increases by robbing other people of their hard earned dollars.
