JD Vance

This is what the institution was built for in many ways. And I hope that they really do play a very positive role. I suspect that they will. But it's one of my prayers for his papacy is that he recognizes there is such great challenge in the world, but I think such great opportunity for him and for the institution he leads.

And by the way, if they don't like me, I still love them.

And by the way, if they don't like me, I still love them.

So let me give you a couple examples. Let me answer the specific question first because I think they're basically the same answer, though different questions. One is while there have been some disruptions, what really has happened here is not an end to supporting people with fentanyl problems or an end to supporting humanitarian causes and people who are suffering from famine or HIV help.

So let me give you a couple examples. Let me answer the specific question first because I think they're basically the same answer, though different questions. One is while there have been some disruptions, what really has happened here is not an end to supporting people with fentanyl problems or an end to supporting humanitarian causes and people who are suffering from famine or HIV help.

You know, HIV drugs in Africa or other places. What has really happened is a reorganization of a very complex bureaucracy. And I'm not saying there haven't been disruptions because there have been, but I've talked to Secretary Rubio about this actually a number of times just in the past two days. The goal here is to, one, make the spending a little bit more efficient.

You know, HIV drugs in Africa or other places. What has really happened is a reorganization of a very complex bureaucracy. And I'm not saying there haven't been disruptions because there have been, but I've talked to Secretary Rubio about this actually a number of times just in the past two days. The goal here is to, one, make the spending a little bit more efficient.

is two, to eliminate the graft that is built into the system. I mean, Marco's told me stories as he dug into this as one of his many jobs, you know, our Secretary of State.

is two, to eliminate the graft that is built into the system. I mean, Marco's told me stories as he dug into this as one of his many jobs, you know, our Secretary of State.

Yes, the archivist. He's the USAID director. That some of the model in USAID was to subcontract, I mean, completely separate the crazy stuff like, you know, doing lesbian puppet shows in very conservative Christian societies. That's insane, but a more fundamental problem is a given NGO contracts to another NGO, which contracts to another NGO.

Yes, the archivist. He's the USAID director. That some of the model in USAID was to subcontract, I mean, completely separate the crazy stuff like, you know, doing lesbian puppet shows in very conservative Christian societies. That's insane, but a more fundamental problem is a given NGO contracts to another NGO, which contracts to another NGO.

This isn't true across the board, but some of these grants, they felt like they were getting 11-12 cents on the dollar that was actually making it to people. So if we eliminate most of that graft, we could actually save a little money while simultaneously ensuring better services for people. And that, I think, would be a win for the American taxpayer.

This isn't true across the board, but some of these grants, they felt like they were getting 11-12 cents on the dollar that was actually making it to people. So if we eliminate most of that graft, we could actually save a little money while simultaneously ensuring better services for people. And that, I think, would be a win for the American taxpayer.

And of course, we care a lot about them, but would also be a win for a lot of poor populations across the world. And that's the same thing with Bobby Kennedy and HNHS. A lot of what we've done is, yes, about saving money, making government more efficient, but it's more fundamentally about bringing some of these bureaucracies within the control of the Secretary of State

And of course, we care a lot about them, but would also be a win for a lot of poor populations across the world. And that's the same thing with Bobby Kennedy and HNHS. A lot of what we've done is, yes, about saving money, making government more efficient, but it's more fundamentally about bringing some of these bureaucracies within the control of the Secretary of State

as opposed to this random entity that's out there, or within the control of Bobby Kennedy, the secretary of HNHS, as opposed to this vast bureaucracy that's out there. Do I promise that everything is going to be perfect? No. But is our goal to radically cut the provision of mental health services for people who are dealing with fentanyl abuse? No, not at all.

as opposed to this random entity that's out there, or within the control of Bobby Kennedy, the secretary of HNHS, as opposed to this vast bureaucracy that's out there. Do I promise that everything is going to be perfect? No. But is our goal to radically cut the provision of mental health services for people who are dealing with fentanyl abuse? No, not at all.

That's not what the president has said. Our goal is to make things more efficient, and importantly, to make it more subject to democratic control. And the general point, Let me frame this.

That's not what the president has said. Our goal is to make things more efficient, and importantly, to make it more subject to democratic control. And the general point, Let me frame this.

I guess my pitch to them would be, we came into the administration with what we believe was a mandate from the American people to make government more responsive to the elected will of the people and less responsive to bureaucratic intransigence. And changing that is not perfect. And I won't even say that we've gotten every decision right.