Glenn Kessler is a professional fact-checker at The Washington Post. I hope Jeff Bezos doesn’t fire him because he does a great job documenting Trump’s lies.
This is a story in which Trump berates a program launched during his own first term! Trump started the program he now mocks as ridiculous!
Kessler begins:
“Here are some of the flagrant scams that, as an example, they’ve spent money on … $520 million for a consultant … you know, when I hired consultants, and they just take advantage of you, it’s a horrible thing to watch. I give them $25,000. I feel I’m overpaying. These guys got $520 million [for] environmental, social governance and investments in Africa.”
— President Donald Trump, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Feb. 22
“$520 million was given for a consultant to do ESG. That’s environmental, social and governance investments in Africa, $520 million.”
— Trump, remarks to governors at the White House, Feb. 21
“Here are just some of the things that we’ve paid, and we’ve stopped, and we’ve gotten the money back: $520 million for a consultant to do ESG, that’s environmental, social and governance investments in Africa.”
Kessler cites more of the many times Trump has made an example of this “consultant” who was given a $520 million contract.
But here’s the truth, that is, the fact-based truth:
Almost daily lately, President Donald Trump complains about what he claims is an egregious contract that the U.S. Agency for International Development gave to “a consultant” for work in Africa — $520 million for what he calls “environmental, social and governance.”
Sometimes he might mention investments, but not always. And sometimes he riffs about the outrageous fee this consultant received, compared with the $25,000 or $50,000 in fees he would dole out to consultants when he was in business. Once, he described it as “an environmental study.”
We’ve debunked many claims the White House has made about USAID funding, from condoms for Gaza (not true) to a transgender opera in Colombia (also not true). But this is an especially glaring error — the money was directed toward supporting a program launched in the first Trump presidency.
The Facts
First of all, while Trump suggests that the $520 million contract has been terminated and “we’ve gotten the money back,” not even the website for the U.S. DOGE Service — the organization overseen by billionaire Elon Musk to carry out government firings and spending cuts — makes this claim. While the DOGE website lists a $520 million contract with DAI Global, it pegs the value recovered as about $159 million.
Meanwhile, the USA Spending website says DAI Global has received $128 million in outlays and $361 million has been obligated.
In other words, much of the contract has already been awarded, so Trump can’t brag about getting back $520 million.
The contract is with DAI Global, a global development company founded in 1970 with 350 people at its headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, plus staff at a dozen offices around the world. According to its website, DAI implements “programs funded by international donors, national governments, private corporations, or major philanthropies.” (DAI declined to comment.)
A White House official defended the president’s use of the phrase “a consultant” because DAI, among its many services, provides social sector and nonprofit consulting. But that’s just a small part of its business.
As for the $520 million contract, it established something called the Prosper Africa Trade and Investment Activity. “The purpose of this Activity is to mobilize enterprise-driven solutions that increase trade and investment in Africa, including North and sub-Saharan Africa,” the contract language said. “It will strengthen Africa’s markets by developing new trade and investment relationships, particularly between the U.S. and Africa.”
Prosper Africa, ironically, was launched in 2019, during Trump’s first term.
“Prosper Africa is a Trump Administration initiative intended to foster U.S.-African trade and commercial ties,” according to the Congressional Research Service. “The initiative seeks to double U.S.-Africa trade, spur U.S. and African economic growth, and — as U.S. officials have stated — ‘demonstrate the superior value proposition of transparent markets and private enterprise for driving growth.’” The idea was to harmonize the existing programs of 16 U.S. agencies and departments in a cohesive, coordinated manner to promote sales and investment by American companies — as a way to counter China’s growing influence in Africa.
“The President is criticizing the contract, not necessarily Prosper Africa,” the White House official said.
So how does a program designed to bolster a first-term Trump initiative get twisted into something negative (ESG!) and worthy of termination? Through some creative cherry-picking.
The White House official noted that DAI, on its website, uses words such as “social” and “governance.” For instance, “We tackle fundamental social and economic development problems caused by inefficient markets, ineffective governance, and instability. … We are committed to shaping a more livable world.”
None of that, of course, is part of the contract, which is focused on investment.
The official also pointed to a DAI blog post that mentioned that “inadequate access to reliable electricity remains a critical constraint to the social and economic growth prospects of 580 million people in Africa,” providing an investment opportunity for U.S. businesses, particularly exports of U.S. clean technologies. The project would “increase U.S. clean energy exports to Africa and close at least $350 million worth of cleantech energy deals by 2026,” the blog post said.
As far as we could tell, clean energy is only a piece of the Prosper Africa Trade and Investment Activity — and, in any case, the goal was to boost American business.
We should note that earlier this month, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast (R-Florida) described the contract as “$520 million to pay consultants to teach people in Africa about climate change” — which is also wrong. His staff did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
The Pinocchio Test
Trump’s claim is based on a series of misunderstandings.
• $520 million is not being saved.
• The contract is not with a consultant, but a company that, among its many services, offers some consulting.
• The contract was to promote investment and American business, under a program started by Trump.
• Social and governance activities are not in the contract, though (horror!) it would promote sales of U.S. clean energy exports.
Trump earns Four Pinocchios.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This reminds me of the days when we would hear about government waste from Republicans forty years ago. My favorite was the suggestion that studying the sex habits of insects was a waste of research money. Great sound bite, but total crap. The truth was that studying insect fermimones was an attempt to create species-specific pesticides, a sort of research holy grail in that world. My cousin did such research back in the day for a major company.
Sound bites are always easier than logic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read somewhere today that you don’t make government more efficient by cutting its staff by large numbers. ESP when the cutting is done indiscriminately, not based on experience, capability or knowledge.
LikeLike
The “Government” is really downsized for the services it provides. The waste problems are with the Contractors, Sub-contractors, Consultants, and Vendors that the Government uses/pays to direct policy, make change or provide service. Unfortunately, the only way to make cuts to these private entities is to make the cuts to the Fed Government agencies that are providing the $$$$.
LikeLike
Don’t believe it.
They are cutting experienced civil servants, people who have been working in the system for 20 years.
They gutted foreign aid. No more medical clinics, no more food for starving people. The farmers who sell $2 billion in grain to USAID are not happy.
Here is what WILL NOT be cut: Elon musk’s billions in federal subsidies.
LikeLike
I didn’t say they weren’t cutting civil servants….they are. But the spending problems aren’t actually at the Fed Govt level…..it’s those private agencies downstream that mismanage tax payer dollars. I can guarantee you that they haven’t touched National Security, at least yet. NSA workers (except those who have very low clearance and wish to continue working from home) are still pretty safe. The Big Gov’t contractors in the area are on edge. And Musk won’t touch NASA because he already “owns” it.
The point is that to reign in the spending, they (DOGE) have to slay the Hydra….because they (DOGE) can’t touch the many heads. I’m not saying I like it, but that is what is happening. It didn’t have to be this way, but our politicians have let things get out of hand over many administrations now and someone is coming in with a chainsaw and destructing the whole mess…..good parts and all.
LikeLike
I don’t think it will end well. With 20-something’s making snap decisions, many departments and agencies will be ruined.
LikeLike
And that’s the idea! The DOUCHE (Dept of Underage Clowns Harming Everything) have no idea how the system was built over the years. They are there to streamline it all for AI to take over. They don’t care about SS because they have been told forever that it won’t be there for them to access when they retire. They don’t care about Medicare or Medicaid or Healthcare (in general) or SNAP/WIC because they have never had to rely on those services. They have lived the Silicon Valley dream life. No different when our elected officials say the economy is doing great ….meanwhile, regular people are having a really hard time making the rent/mortgage, paying for food etc while working a full time job and another side hustle.
LikeLike
Musk and Trump ‘s goal is to disable our government. This serves the interests of one man: Putin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The point is that to reign in the spending, they (DOGE) have to slay the Hydra….because they (DOGE) can’t touch the many heads.”
Are you suggesting “they have to destroy the village in order to save it”?
It is worrisome that people believe absurdities like “they have to slay the hydra” to reign in government spending. No they don’t! It’s nonsensical — think about any organization and the way to control spending isn’t to ask some 20 something outside who is good with computers to come in to make wholesale cuts! That basically DESTROYS the organization, which is likely the point. The far right has conned some gullible people to give them consent to kill the government in the name of “efficiency”, an absurdity that conveniently overlooks that these people are killing the government not for “efficiency” but to profit from it and end it.
If someone’s spouse came home and said that since their family hadn’t been able to reign in their spending enough, the spouse had just hired (for even more money!) a 21 year old computer geek who would be making wholesale cuts to their housing budget (“look how much he is saving us by cutting our health insurance, electricity, heating, childcare, and car!”), it would be the height of absurdity to follow that 21 year old’s orders and feel delighted you had fixed the problem and saved the family!
The correct response would be to rightly believe that the spouse was cognitively impaired, or had an agenda that was to destroy your family, not “save” it.
There are plenty of ways to reign in spending and they have been used in the past many times. But with the recognition that it is COMPLICATED because government is about providing services that are important to some people, and not important to others. Just because certain spending isn’t important to your personally does not make it “waste” and “fraud”.
We used to know that. Rural America benefited by getting electricity and clean water and roads and bridges that people in cities could have balked at paying for. But they did not. Scientific research and medical advances and monitoring climate and pollution and flooding and national parks costs money even if there are lots of people who won’t directly benefit.
No one objects to rooting out waste and fraud. But that’s not what is happening. It is absurd that anyone believes that is what is happening because Musk and Trump have told them it is.
They are trying to kill the government, and some people believe the absurdity that by killing government they are saving it. Because why wouldn’t you believe an absurdity when a man with a long history of lying tells you it is so?
Next up – atrocities.
LikeLike
LisaM—not sure if I follow all you are saying here [especially suggesting that these hire-outs “direct policy”]– but it resonates for me after having recently read about Clinton’s lauded efforts to ‘downsize’ govt bureaucracy. That resulted in a huge ballooning of the amount of fed govtl work subcontracted/ outsourced to contractors. [Kind of figures: Clinton was a neoliberal; this illustrated “public-private partnership.”]
Shines a light on the narrative I’ve been reading recently, countering Musk’s wholesale layoffs of govt workers: although US population has increased [x]%, # of fed workers has remained at 2 million for decades.
No, actually: increased size of country has increased fed govt workload; we’ve just chosen to sub a bunch of the work out to for-profit contractors…
LikeLike
Clinton’s policy was called “Third Way.” He and Al Gore had an initiative called Reinventing Government in which public-private partnership were considered far superior to government services.
LikeLiked by 1 person