USAid

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US federal workers weigh Trump’s buyout offer: ‘We’re feeling petty as hell’

      by

      Amy*, a federal US government employee working for homeland security who was hired by the Joe Biden administration’s refugee programme, has not left her phone out of her sight since last Tuesday, when the Elon Musk-led push for mass voluntary redundancies of government workers began.Since the US office of personnel management (OPM) sent nearly all of the federal government’s 3 million employees an email offering them deferred resignations and warning that, if they choose to stay, they may be laid off or reassigned, US career civil servants have been weighing their options.“It’s just been crazy. A billionaire is taking over a government,” Amy said. “The executive orders against the federal workforce feel designed to create chaos and fear. Musk calls us lazy and described workers at the US Agency for International Development (USAid) as a ‘ball of worms’. They’re trying to dehumanise us to make these changes more palatable, and are trying to rattle enough of us so that a majority of federal employees leave.”Amy was among scores of civil servants from across America who shared with the Guardian what they intend to do with the Trump administration’s “fork in the road” buyout offer, designed to dramatically reduce the ranks of left-leaning federal workers.“While many may think federal employees should take the offer and run, I haven’t spoken to a single person jumping at it,” she said. “Everyone is still digging their heels in and is intent on not taking it. We’re also feeling petty as hell.”Although her department does not qualify for voluntary redundancies, Amy is affected by the blanket return to the office order that was issued.“I was hired for a fully remote position,” she said. “I spend six to eight months every year overseas helping refugees who are trying to enter the US. So many of us are trying to continue focusing on our work while being told to immediately return to the office, but also to not return to the office yet because there is not space for all of us nor the resources to relocate everyone.“The refugee program has been suspended, so we don’t know the future of it, but I feel really determined to stick it out so that the budget for me cannot be used for somebody else who doesn’t care about refugees and [will] infiltrate this line of work to do harm or to prevent good from being done.”Amy’s remarks reflected those of scores of other federal government workers who presented themselves as a united front in defiance of Musk and Trump, but there were some who felt it was possibly time to resign from their careers.For Riordan*, a trans, autistic, disabled veteran who has worked for nearly 20 years for the government, the last few weeks have been stressful and “too much” for their mental health. Feeling “tired”, Riordan wants to hold on until they can retire early.“It’s upsetting. The stereotype of the lazy government worker has persisted for a long time but the majority of us have been working our asses off to serve our populations.”Federal workers have been told that those eligible for voluntary early retirement (Vera) can combine it with their deferred resignation, but Riordan is cautious.“I’m not going to take the chance right now. We’re not even sure what is being offered is legal. [If I’ll be eligible for Vera] I will take it in a second because I’m ready to get out of here. I don’t want to work for Trump and I don’t want to work for Musk. I’ll sell the house and move to a blue state where I can be with my family. For now, I’m just going to delete the emails and ignore them.”A long-term government employee at USAid from the east coast who had been working on programs in the developing world shared her disbelief at how her agency has begun being dismantled.“After going dark for several days, the USAid website was relaunched to tell the world that the entire workforce is being put on administrative leave,” she said. “Every message to my agency’s workforce has been hostile and intimidating with threats of disciplinary action and no space for disagreement with orders from the White House. All of the communication we have received expresses lack of trust in us and our judgment.“As a result of the stop-work order that has affected most of the work USAid funds, our workforce is glued to our computers with nothing to do. The American public is not benefiting from this in any way.”Deaths and illness around the world could result from the halt of USAid assistance that contributes to global security, she warned, adding that despite everything she had decided to stay.“For a second, the [buyout offer] sounded kind of appealing, but I quickly heard voices I trust – employee unions, lawyers, Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia – who raised questions and told people to be very cautious. There’s no funding for this [buyout programme], there’s no guarantee, so I’m not going to take it. This is unprecedented.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMartin Heyworth, a former chief of staff at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Philadelphia between 1999 and 2009 who retired from federal employment in 2017, disagreed and pointed out that Bill Clinton as well as Barack Obama had ordered large buyout programmes of federal workers during their presidencies.“Offering buyouts is not new and has been standard practice in the US federal government for the last several decades, whether under a Republican or a Democratic president. The phenomenon is neither Republican- nor Trump-specific, and it’s being construed as a sort of Trump-related dysfunction, which I think is not accurate.“I did not vote for Trump, I voted for Jill Stein, and although he does things that are problematic, I think he needs to be given a chance.”Elizabeth, a federal immigration enforcement attorney from the west coast, learned a few days ago that her department would be exempt from the buyout, but that she would have to return to the office despite her flexible hybrid union contract.“I’m a single mother, and the flexibility of this job is what is keeping me sane,” she said. “I have so many court appointments, I just don’t know whether I could handle having to come into the office all the time in between for the next four years.“I currently have no plans of quitting, but I’d have to strongly consider other job options, depending on how draconian they want to be on this.”Elizabeth, who is Black, added that the administration’s decision to suspend DEI practices and departments across the federal government was also “extremely upsetting”. “I’ve been having problems concentrating all week. A handful of people in my office support Trump, but others are very liberal. Politically like-minded people and I are concerned. Power is being given to Elon Musk.”Another major worry, Elizabeth said, was the prospect of being subjected to loyalty tests as part of future workplace evaluations, while she insisted that her political dislike of the Trump administration would not undermine her professionalism.“I’m not taking a loyalty test for any president. We all take an oath, our job is to uphold the laws of the United States. It is not to pledge loyalty to anyone. I can have my views about any politician but still be able to do my job.”An older remote worker for the Department of Veterans Affairs said her office had been “swamped with calls from stressed-out employees considering the deferred resignation but without sufficient information to make a decision within the very limited timeframe”.“If they don’t take the deferred resignation,” she said, “will they need to return to the office even though there is no identified office space? Will they have to relocate in order to keep working? Will their jobs be eliminated? Exactly how does this affect their retirement benefits?”She described emails coming from the administration as “callous” and “staggering”.“Even though we try to refrain from any overtly political comments,” she said, “it was clear that most people I spoke to viewed the ‘[fork in the road]’ email as craven and hypocritical. ‘Enhanced standards of conduct’ – from an administration headed by a felon, a sexual predator, a pathological liar with no respect for the rule of law? What a joke.”A probationary Department of Homeland Security employee from the midwest who wanted to stay anonymous said she would be taking the deferred resignation offer.“I do believe [this offer] is likely illegal and the administration will stiff me, but it doesn’t really matter in my case,” she said. “I only signed on to the federal government for the remote and telework benefits, and now that’s gone, I can cut ties and return to my old job, where I made more money, worked fewer days and hours, and had a shorter commute.”A combat veteran federal government worker from the north-west expressed a steely resolve to resist.“We laugh at [Trump] during meetings, trying to make sense of the nonsense spilling out of the White House,” she said. “His disregard for laws, morality and humanity proves how intimidated he is by real Americans making real contributions. I hold the line and dare him to fucking fire me.”*Names have been changed More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      What is the Pepfar fight and what does it mean for Africa?

      by

      What is Pepfar and why is it in the news?Pepfar is an acronym for the US “president’s emergency plan for Aids relief”. It was set up two decades ago by George W Bush to address the HIV epidemic.It’s the biggest government-run fund of its kind. Since 2003, the project has donated about $110bn (£90.5bn) to governments, universities and nonprofits in 50 countries, either directly or through agencies such as USAid.Until now Pepfar has been funded in five-year cycles. In the past the programme has had virtually unanimous support from Republicans and Democrats. But the next funding cycle (from 2023 to 2028) became ensnared in US abortion politics and the fallout contributed to Congress missing the 30 September deadline to allow another five-year funding cycle for the initiative.What’s the link between Pepfar and abortion?US laws already prevent Pepfar (or any state agencies) from paying for abortion services, according to the California-based policy research group, Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). But in May, a coalition of conservative thinktanks and lawmakers began to make waves with arguments that Joe Biden’s administration has “hijacked” Pepfar to promote abortion instead of treating and preventing HIV.That’s where the risk to Pepfar’s five-year budget emerged – because the Republican lawmakers then refused to sign off on a spending bill for Pepfar if there weren’t stricter rules in place to stop Pepfar funds from overlapping with abortion services in any way.According to Brian Honermann, deputy director of public policy at the US-based Foundation for Aids Research, the allegations that Pepfar has been usurped to push a “radical social agenda” overseas are “baseless” and “stitched together from unrelated policy speeches, documents and assertions about how those apply to Pepfar”.What will happen to Pepfar now?The multibillion-dollar health programme is a permanent part of US law. That means Pepfar funding will continue, but it will lose its favoured position of receiving five years of funding at a time.The failure to reauthorise Pepfar will mean some of its built-in rules will expire, including a guideline that requires 10% of Pepfar money to go to orphans and children in need.Will organisations and governments lose their Pepfar grants?The fund has enough money to pay governments and civil society organisations until September 2024 (about $6.8bn), but a state department spokesperson warns that Pepfar won’t escape unscathed in the long term.Moreover, getting funding for only one year at a time will make it harder for Pepfar to plan ahead and to source crucial HIV tools, such as condoms or medicine, at the best prices. This could ultimately imperil the people that rely on the fund’s support, the spokesperson warned.The symbolic power of a five-year commitment will also be lost, says Honermann. “It shows partner countries that the US is invested for a significant period of time and that Pepfar won’t just disappear.”The threat of a permanent ‘gag rule’Another factor has swirled around Pepfar’s funding drama: some lawmakers have said they’ll only agree to restart the five-year funding regime if the fund is once again subject to the “Mexico City policy”, also called the “gag rule”.The gag rule bans organisations and governments from providing or promoting termination of pregnancy services regardless of whose money they’re using to do it. It was expanded to apply to Pepfar for the first time in 2017. It is only ever enforced when there’s a Republican president in the White House, so is not currently in effect.And while there is no finalised legislation that would make a permanent gag rule a reality (and Honermann argues it would be unlikely to get past the Democrats), the threat of it may already have done some damage.Research conducted by Fòs Feminista, a global alliance that advocates for sexual and reproductive rights, found that the 2022 decision to roll back the national right to an abortion in the US had a contagious impact in a number of countries. In Nigeria, for instance, respondents told Fòs Feminista that local lawmakers were using the change in US abortion laws to push back on a more liberal law in their country. Terminations are legal in Nigeria only if carrying the foetus to term threatens the mother’s life.Recipients of US government funding are often so worried about losing it that they enforce abortion laws more harshly than is necessary. Research shows that confusion about whether the gag rule had been revoked at the start of the Biden administration resulted in the policy – and its harms – being in place for much longer in practice.And the Pepfar wrangling and attendant media coverage has already resulted in mixed messages reaching health advocates in Africa. Some South African activists told the Guardian they were concerned that the news would be calamitous for civil society in the country. Such organisations receive the most Pepfar dollars (44%) in South Africa according to 2020 tracking data. The government gets just under 1.5% of the money.Honermann says that there is an intentional political strategy to keep communication about the changes in restrictions vague. “It’s a way to encourage over-enforcement for fear of falling on the wrong side of this.”He adds: “For now, Pepfar will continue as long as funding is made available. But these political threats to the programme are ultimately playing with the lives of millions of people worldwide who rely on this programme.”What has the reaction been in Africa?Dave Clark is the chief operating officer at the Aurum Institute, a non-profit that works on HIV and tuberculosis (TB) projects in South Africa, Mozambique, Ghana, Lesotho and Eswatini.Aurum is a partner for Pepfar’s Dreams project which works towards an Aids-free future for girls and women aged 10 to 24 by providing HIV services, contraception and violence prevention support for women, adolescents and their sexual partners.One of the major strengths of Pepfar, Clark says, is that it’s a sure-fire source of carefully planned funding for global health in a world that is often more talk than action.He explains: “The debate in America should not throw us off saving lives. Pepfar is what it says on the label: president’s emergency plan for Aids relief. That’s its extraordinary power and legacy.” More