If you’re someone who isn’t stuck in the world of D.C. politics, you’re probably not thinking about USAID and its purpose.

On the surface, USAID is supposed to be a mechanism to provide aid to foreign nations in need so the U.S. can further diplomatic ties.

It’s sold as foreign aid for people who need help with the bonus of keeping or improving our relationships with countries for future compliancy.

But is this entirely true is the question at hand? Has USAID been navigating outside of this purview?

Here is a quick media lesson for you: If there are great accusations made and the defense is not about the accusation but the character of the person making it; it’s likely cause the accusation is true. It’s called a “pivot”.

You pivot towards an area that you want the public to see, rather than attempting to defend the damning area that hurts your narrative or argument.

Elon Musk, along with the Trump administration, is making a great claim that USAID is essentially a slush fund for politicians, the CIA and NGO (Non-Governmental Organizations) domestic and abroad.

Musk is making the great claim that what we perceive in good faith as an organization meant to help “develop” underdeveloped nations with tax dollars is being used to further various agendas with little to no oversight.

I’m a consumer of all forms of media and I listen to the arguments for and against a variety of topics. My pursuit is with the truth and possessing a deeper understanding of arguments for or against any topic.

Visit www.xx-xyathletics.com/ADAM to shop through their top-quality athletic Women’s (XX) and Men’s (XY) clothing, ranging from t-shirts to leggings.

With that stated, I’ve listened to the left-wing retort to Musk’s massive claims, and they actively avoid touching his accusations. They pivot.

It’s quite shocking to me that when it’s explained that USAID funds a variety of projects that have nothing to do with helping foreign nations in a humanitarian capacity, the response is rarely specific in their defense of USAID.

Musk isn’t just making accusations on a whim, he’s actually being very specific with his findings and accusations. It’s one thing to make a wild claim that is broad, it’s another to make a wild claim that is incredibly specific. Specific claims of corruption require specific retorts in its defense.

Essentially, the retort to Elon should be “Elon is lying because here is the evidence,” instead of “I don’t trust Elon because he’s a billionaire.”

This is the type of reply that is given, coming from the New York Times’ White House Chief Correspondent, Peter Baker: