Trump’s administration asks deference programs to help prove its value, on a scale of 1 to 5

Last week, Trump’s administration terminated almost all contracts for foreign assistance of the United States after saying the federal court that his review of the assistance was concluded, and closed those who were found to be in national interest.

But over the last few days, many of these same programs have received a questionnaire who will first ask them to describe them in detail what their projects (or how) do and how to align that job with national interests.

The research, received by the New York Times, is entitled “Side Assistance Review.” Some agencies received it with instructions stating that the collected data “will support the next phase of the administration reviewed”. The deadlines for the return of the poll start from March 7 to March 17th.

Many of the monitoring projects have already released their staff and closed their doors because they did not receive funding since when the review process seemed seemingly. President Trump issued a freezing of the executive command on January 20, waiting for an overview. In some organizations, there are no staff members who would have completed the survey.

The distribution of the survey is the latest turn in the eight -week ride ride for help organizations. Chaos began with a warrant for stopping employees and contractors of the International Development Agency of United States and freezing all funds, including compensation for hundreds of millions of dollars already spent. This was followed by a procedure allowing organizations that provided rescue treatment and food assistance to seek renunciation, allowing them to continue their work.

The endings then came, last Wednesday, more than 5,000 projects and programs. Since then, some projects have said that they have been completely renovated, and others have only been renovated by the conditions of their original renunciation, which expires next month. Almost no one saw any of the funds that owed them.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruling That the administration must obey the command of the lower court to let the frozen side of help. However, this verdict followed after thousands of projects had already bankrupt to the eight -week freezing.

The new questionnaire was sent to many organizations before the Supreme Court verdict. State Department did not respond to the commentary request.

“This whole procedure is confusing: first of us, we were asked to restart rescue programs, but we did not receive money for this, and now we are asked to review programs that have been previously reviewed and already abolished,” said Christy Delafield, a spokeswoman for the FHI 360, an organization that provides health and humanitarian aid in 60 countries.

New polls are looking for grants – including thousands of assistance in ambulance, malaria control and tuberculosis treatment projects – more than 25 questions about how their projects contribute to the US national interests. It also provides a list that includes some of the best political goals of Trump administration, including stopping illegal immigration and defense “from gender ideology”.

It allows for answers up to 150 characters (about 35 words) and rewards from 1 to 5 points based on how well the project serves each goal.

Among the research issues, cited literally below:

• Can you confirm that this is not the Dei project and that there are no Dei elements of that project?

• Can you confirm that this is not a climate or “environmental justice” project or to include such elements?

• How directly does this project impact on the effort on the suppression of malicious influence, including China?

• What impact does this project have on restricting the flow of fentanis, synthetic drugs and chemicals of precursor to the United States?

• Does this project directly influence the efforts on the strengthening of American chains or insurance of the rare land minerals?

• Does this project directly contribute to the restriction of illegal immigration or strengthening the security of the US border?

In an sworn statement on February 26, he answered a lawsuit filed by assistance organizations, Peter Marocco, an official of a state department who oversee the reduction of USAIDs, stated that “the procedure for the individual review of any excellent OPAID obligation was concluded” and that secretary of the state ruined “now made the final decision” He stated that about 297 contracts of a state department (not grand) were still reviewed.

On March 5, the Government announced that “it almost ended the individualized overview of existing contracts and scholarships” and that “almost all” State Department and USAIDs were financing with the foreign assistance “individually inspected”.

In a report on the respect of the court order submitted on March 6th, the G

David A. Super, a professor of rights at Georgetown University, said, repeatedly saying that they had conducted an individualized examination when there was little evidence that they did so, members of the State Department staff “exposed themselves to contemptuous courts and their lawyers with serious consequences.”

Although it was not a condition that the review included collecting information from the recipient of grants, by sending this questionnaire, the government implied that they demanded this information, he added.

“They say here to know if your activities support the foreign policy of the United States, we have to know these things, but we did not know that when we did our review,” he said.

The study was sent to projects that were funded through 32 different USAIDs, including the Global Health Bureau, food safety bureau, the Office of the Chief Economist and the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Management.

Karoun Demirjian contribute to reporting.