Dylan Scott

not only are you going to lose these contracts, you're never going to be a government contractor ever again. And not just at USAID, but across the government. And similarly, I think there was a very serious attempt to instill fear within the building. The stated purpose for putting the senior staff on administrative leave was that they were supposedly sabotaging the president's executive order.

not only are you going to lose these contracts, you're never going to be a government contractor ever again. And not just at USAID, but across the government. And similarly, I think there was a very serious attempt to instill fear within the building. The stated purpose for putting the senior staff on administrative leave was that they were supposedly sabotaging the president's executive order.

not only are you going to lose these contracts, you're never going to be a government contractor ever again. And not just at USAID, but across the government. And similarly, I think there was a very serious attempt to instill fear within the building. The stated purpose for putting the senior staff on administrative leave was that they were supposedly sabotaging the president's executive order.

And That was sort of a like putting ahead on a spike moment of if you try to sort of go against these executive orders because you think they're illegal or that they're going to get people killed, we're still willing to throw them on administrative leave and throw the agency into chaos. So what makes you think we won't do that to you too?

And That was sort of a like putting ahead on a spike moment of if you try to sort of go against these executive orders because you think they're illegal or that they're going to get people killed, we're still willing to throw them on administrative leave and throw the agency into chaos. So what makes you think we won't do that to you too?

And That was sort of a like putting ahead on a spike moment of if you try to sort of go against these executive orders because you think they're illegal or that they're going to get people killed, we're still willing to throw them on administrative leave and throw the agency into chaos. So what makes you think we won't do that to you too?

We've never seen something quite like this. I think it's a synthesis of a lot of ideas that you separately heard about on the campaign trail and that people who are now prominent in the Trump administration have been speaking about for a very long time. So one is impoundment.

We've never seen something quite like this. I think it's a synthesis of a lot of ideas that you separately heard about on the campaign trail and that people who are now prominent in the Trump administration have been speaking about for a very long time. So one is impoundment.

We've never seen something quite like this. I think it's a synthesis of a lot of ideas that you separately heard about on the campaign trail and that people who are now prominent in the Trump administration have been speaking about for a very long time. So one is impoundment.

This is the idea that when the Congress says, we want you to spend $45 billion on foreign aid, the president can choose to spend less of that if he wants.

This is the idea that when the Congress says, we want you to spend $45 billion on foreign aid, the president can choose to spend less of that if he wants.

This is the idea that when the Congress says, we want you to spend $45 billion on foreign aid, the president can choose to spend less of that if he wants.

This is more or less a crank theory that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled was not a thing and not constitutionally permissible in the 1970s when Richard Nixon tried to do it. Um, USAID was a test case for can we impound things and get away with it?

This is more or less a crank theory that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled was not a thing and not constitutionally permissible in the 1970s when Richard Nixon tried to do it. Um, USAID was a test case for can we impound things and get away with it?

This is more or less a crank theory that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled was not a thing and not constitutionally permissible in the 1970s when Richard Nixon tried to do it. Um, USAID was a test case for can we impound things and get away with it?

And I think there was a sense of a lot of people in the Trump administration that in the first term, they were frustrated again and again by what they call the deep state, which is just federal civil servants who are apolitical and, um, are responsible for saying when something is illegal or goes against existing regulation and were often a thorn in Trump's side.

And I think there was a sense of a lot of people in the Trump administration that in the first term, they were frustrated again and again by what they call the deep state, which is just federal civil servants who are apolitical and, um, are responsible for saying when something is illegal or goes against existing regulation and were often a thorn in Trump's side.

And I think there was a sense of a lot of people in the Trump administration that in the first term, they were frustrated again and again by what they call the deep state, which is just federal civil servants who are apolitical and, um, are responsible for saying when something is illegal or goes against existing regulation and were often a thorn in Trump's side.

And so I think they spent the four years out of power thinking a lot about how to dismantle that element of the civil service once they got back. And USAID, I think, is one interesting illustration of how that works.

And so I think they spent the four years out of power thinking a lot about how to dismantle that element of the civil service once they got back. And USAID, I think, is one interesting illustration of how that works.