The Deportation of Khalil Abrego Garcia: The Facts 

The deportation of Khalil Abrego Garcia has surfaced as a major news item, with some politicians and media pundits calling it a “Constitutional crisis.” The Left claims the Trump administration denied him his lawful right to “due process.” Conservatives disagree.

Here is a brief timeline of the events:

Garcia entered the US illegally around 2011.

In 2019, an immigration judge found him to be a member of MS-13 – a criminal gang now designated a terrorist organization. That determination made him legally deportable. Garcia appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the ruling. These two proceedings represent two rounds of due process over the gang affiliation allegation.

Separately, a different immigration judge issued a “withholding of removal” order, finding that while Garcia could be deported, he could not be returned to El Salvador because he had what that judge deemed a “credible fear” of harm from a rival gang. To be clear, that ruling did not prohibit the US from deporting him. It prohibited him from being deported to El Salvador.

Last month, Garcia was among hundreds deported to El Salvador and placed in a high-security prison. When his family presented evidence of the 2019 withholding order, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called his deportation an “administrative error.”

Garcia’s lawyers sued in federal court. Judge Paula Xinis presided and sided with Garcia. She ordered the DHS to “facilitate” and “effectuate” his return to the US.

The administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the effectuation requirement exceeded judicial authority. On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court came to a 9–0 decision. It had two parts. It upheld the “facilitate” portion of the district court’s order. As for the “effectuate” requirement, the court remanded the case to Judge Xinis to clarify what “effectuate” entails, with instructions to respect executive branch authority in foreign affairs.

This distinction matters. “Facilitate” might mean providing transportation if El Salvador chooses to release Garcia. But “effectuate” could imply pressuring or coercing a foreign sovereign – something outside of judicial authority.

Thus far, the administration has not defied the Supreme Court order. It is legally obligated to facilitate Garcia’s return if El Salvador releases him – but it cannot compel El Salvador to act.

Bottom line: There is currently no legal obligation for the administration to force Garcia’s repatriation.

Just the Facts. Briefly… 

* Garcia received multiple rounds of due process.

* He was legally found to be a member of MS-13.

* A judge separately ruled that he should not be deported to El Salvador.

* His deportation violated that country-specific withholding order.

* The Supreme Court’s ruling limited judicial authority over executive foreign policy but affirmed the need to facilitate correction of the deportation error.

* The administration’s conduct may be slow or evasive – but it has not (yet) defied the courts.

USAID: Efficient? Mismanaged? Corrupt? The Facts 

Of the government agencies DOGE is investigating for waste, mismanagement, and corruption, the attempt to cut in half the budget of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has upset some Americans and perplexed many.

After, all, compared to all the spending the federal government does on food and drugs and war, the USAID budget, at less than $100 billion a year, is almost de minimis. And isn’t that the government agency that helps poor people all over the world? Isn’t that an intelligent and peaceful form of diplomacy?

Indeed, I can’t remember anyone in the public eye criticizing USAID. Until the Trump administration appointed Jeremy Lewin as the acting head of foreign assistance at the State Department, few, if anyone, thought that DOGE would recommend that the administration should shut it down or, at the very least, drastically cut its budget.

The argument here boils down to a few simple questions:

1. Is USAID running an efficient operation? Are they overstaffed? Are they wasting taxpayer dollars due to typical government bureaucracy?

2. How much of its budget (paid for by tax dollars) ends up in the hands of the truly needy, rather than in the pockets of the intermediaries who facilitate USAID’s spending?

3. What percentage of its projects achieve the humanitarian goals that USAID claims to have in its charter?

Recently, legal challenges have emerged, with federal judges partially blocking attempts to dismantle USAID, emphasizing the potential risks to US national security interests and the well-being of vulnerable populations.

USAID by the Numbers 

In fiscal year 2024, USAID spent approximately $21.7 billion – roughly 0.3% of the US federal budget. For FY2025, the agency’s budget has increased to just under $27 billion. USAID remains one of the largest government-funded foreign assistance programs in the world.

Although many assume that most of this money goes directly to people in need, the actual flow of funds is more complex. Only about 12%–15% of USAID’s funding is allocated directly to local organizations in recipient countries. The remaining 85% is disbursed through US-based intermediaries, including major international contractors and NGOs headquartered in Washington, DC.

Efficiency and Impact 

Recent estimates suggest that only 40%–50% of USAID’s total funding translates into direct benefits for intended recipients. The remainder is absorbed by administrative overhead, contractor fees, program management costs, and losses due to inefficiencies or fraud. This level of leakage is considered unusually high, especially when compared to top-rated private charities.
Private organizations such as Direct Relief or the Against Malaria Foundation regularly spend 85%–90% or more of their budgets on direct program services. Charity Navigator notes that for most highly efficient nonprofits, a minimum of 75% of funds typically reaches the intended cause. USAID falls short of this benchmark.

Part of this discrepancy can be explained by the regulatory and logistical burdens faced by government agencies. Procurement laws, auditing protocols, and risk-averse contracting rules create structural inefficiencies. Even so, multiple audits and watchdog reports have identified longstanding problems with waste, opaque performance metrics, and instances of outright fraud or corruption.

Spending Breakdown 

The chart below summarizes the estimated distribution of USAID’s annual expenditures:

Sources 

* USAID FY2024–25 Budget Data – USAspending.gov
* 12%–15% Direct Local Partner Funding – WRAL News Fact Check
* Efficiency Estimates – The Simulacrum (Medium)
* Private Charity Efficiency Benchmarks – Charity Navigator
* Funding Concentration – UnlockAid.org

The Bottom Line 

* USAID’s FY2025 budget is approximately $27 billion.

* Only 12%–15% of funds go directly to local organizations in recipient countries.

* Roughly 85% of funds are distributed through large, often US-based, intermediaries.

* Only about 40%–50% of total USAID funds result in direct aid to intended recipients.

* By contrast, many top-rated private charities deliver 75%–90% of donations directly to beneficiaries.

* High administrative costs and regulatory overheads account for much of USAID’s inefficiency.

* Watchdog reports have identified recurring issues with waste, vague reporting, and corruption.

* While some inefficiencies stem from legal and logistical constraints, critics argue that better results are both expected and achievable.

Budgets: California vs. Florida, Round #20: Just the Facts

This is one of many Florida vs. California pieces I’ve written over the years. I jump at any chance I get to compare the two because I live in Florida and am very happy to live here because we do everything right and California does everything wrong. In today’s drubbing of Cali, I’m riffing on the recent news that Gov. Gavin Newsom is now seeking billions in federal assistance because his government has once again failed to balance its budget.

How is that possible? California has a much larger population and a massive Gross Domestic Product – larger than 80% of the countries in the world.

On top of that, the state is a huge tax collector, hitting up its citizens for every sort of tax imaginable. And at high rates. And that’s to say nothing of the Big Tax – the state income tax, which tops out at a breathtaking 13.3%. Between federal taxes and state taxes, a Californian making, say, half a mil a year, would end up paying more than half his income in taxes!

And yet, somehow, California politicians – from both sides of the aisle – can’t balance their budgets. And while they are overspending taxpayer dollars, just about everything they are spending money on gets worse.

For example:

Have you heard of Medi-Cal? It’s the state’s Medicaid program, which was “improved” by Newsom and team to make undocumented immigrants eligible for its services. Medi-Cal accounted for $6.2 billion of the state’s budgetary shortfall.

Worse, California has spent tens of billions trying to address the crisis over the last two decades, yet the problem has only worsened.

Florida, despite far fewer resources, has made more targeted investments and kept its urban centers far more livable.

I won’t mention the coastal fire that caused billions of dollars in property damage, which might have been avoided if the state hadn’t allowed some reservoirs that feed the fire hydrants to go dry.

Anyway, here are the facts:

The Facts, Briefly 

* California, which imposes a higher rate of income and other consumer-related taxes, ended 2024 with a $46.8 billion shortfall.

* Florida operates with no state income tax and ended the year 2024 with a $17 billion surplus.

* California has a 68-cent per gallon gas tax and a $2.87 cigarette excise tax. California’s tax system ranks 48th overall on the 2025 State Tax Competitiveness Index.

* Florida has a 37 cent per gallon gas tax, a $0.68 cigarette excise tax, and ranked 4th best in the nation on the same index.

* Florida has maintained a balanced budget every year since Ron DeSantis took office in 2019 without raising taxes.

* California has had a net budgetary shortfall of $140 billion since Gavin Newsom took office (also in 2019) while raising taxes several times – including the State Disability Insurance (SDI) payroll tax, gas taxes, and the state income tax (which went from 13.3% to 14.4% in 2024).

* California’s cost of living is 23.5% higher than Florida’s.

* Florida’s per capita debt is among the lowest in the country.

* Florida’s credit rating remains AAA, indicating strong financial management and low borrowing costs.

* Government agencies in Florida are consistently audited and held to performance standards, reducing corruption and waste.

Final question: Looking at these numbers you might be thinking, “Why would anyone live in California?” I ask myself the same question every time I look at the stats. But every time I go there – which is at least four times a year – I get it. California has the best climate and one of the most beautiful landscapes in the country. Okay. But still…

On to the news…

DOGE: Can Elon Drain the Swamp?
Was He Insane to Even Try?

Two weeks ago, on President’s Day, a friend mentioned that she was on her way to a political protest. Knowing her to be left-leaning and strongly anti-Trump, I assumed that she was attending to object to the usual leftist issues – racism, sexism, transphobia, colonialism, etc.

I was wrong. It was organized, as one of the sponsors put it, to protest “how our constitutional rights are trampled upon, how the authority of the President is being usurped by those who seek to consolidate power for personal gain.”

Expressed more directly, they were protesting Elon Musk and his leadership of DOGE – the Department of Government Efficiency.

But why? What’s wrong with eliminating government waste and inefficiency?

I haven’t yet figured that out. I hope it’s not Trump Derangement Syndrome – the brain disease whereby victims reflexively believe that everything Trump does is an existential threat to not just democracy, but to life as we know it.

DOGE was created by President Trump through an executive order he signed on Inauguration Day. Under the order, DOGE will be a temporary organization within the White House that will spend 18 months (until July 4, 2026), carrying out its mission.

This is not the first time in my lifetime that presidents have hired teams to eradicate government waste. Jimmy Carter did it. Bill Clinton did it. Even Barack Obama did it.

And why wouldn’t they?

Consider the size of federal spending today: The government will spend approximately $7 trillion this year, with a budget deficit of almost $2 trillion. (Spending on Social Security old-age and survivor benefits will be around $1.4 trillion, and net spending for Medicare will be close to $1 trillion.)

And now think about the way those dollars are spent. Do you know how many bills, acts, orders, and allocations comprise that spending? Thousands! And the number of individual payments? We must be talking about tens of thousands of checks issued, if not more. With a spending machine that large, how could there not be considerable inefficiency and waste?

And when you consider the fact that most of this spending gets initiated, approved, and processed through unelected government agencies that report to no one but themselves, how could there not also be enormous corruption and fraud?

Which is to say that there should always be an effort to reduce waste and fraud and government spending as a general principle.

But it should not surprise anyone that if somebody took such a mission seriously – and went about seriously eliminating waste and fraud – there would be serious if not deadly resistance to it.

Which is to say that I shouldn’t be surprised to learn that so many publications that I once thought of as conservative (and fiscally conservative, certainly) – like Forbes and the WSJ – would be aligning themselves with Democrats in questioning and even challenging much of what DOGE is trying to do.

Millions of government employees are making more than their counterparts in the private industry, with, for the most part, a lifetime employment guarantee and with, for the most part, little or nothing meaningful to do every day. Why wouldn’t they want to get rid of Musk and his damn DOGE?

On an episode of the Joe Rogan show, he said that he had discovered what “might be the biggest fraud in history.” He was talking about the Social Security Administration, and he made two assertions:

* The SSA has 394 million names registered as “eligible” for Social Security payments. Yet there are only 334 million people living in the United States.

* Of those 394 million eligible recipients, 20 million are over 100 years old, according to the SSA. Yet, according to the US Census Bureau, there are only about 101,000 Americans over 100 eligible to receive Social Security benefits.

Although spokespeople from the SSA do not dispute the numbers per se, they insist that they do not represent checks being cut. The discrepancy, they say, is due to longstanding glitches in SSA’s computing system, that, for some reason, have not be corrected.

Anyway, this is Just the Facts, so let’s look at the facts – the seemingly crazy expenditures that DOGE has been uncovering. (Caution: Remember, these are early numbers and they have not been thoroughly vetted. Some of them are almost certainly wrong. And some others may be accurate, but the conclusions we can draw from them may not be as easy as some, including me, would like to believe.)

Let’s begin with USAID, since that’s the agency that has so far attracted the most attention.

The United States Agency for International Development

USAID was created in the early 1960s, ostensibly to provide aid to impoverished peoples and distressed regions around the world, although it’s long been known to involve itself with all sorts of political and social intrigue.

The agency currently operates out of 60 nations and employs 10,000 people. Of all the questionable expenditures DOGE has taken note of, USAID has some of the most questionable.

For example:

* $10M for “Mozambique voluntary medical male circumcision”

* $9.7M for UC Berkeley to develop “a cohort of Cambodian youth with enterprise driven skills”

* $2.3M for “strengthening independent voices in Cambodia”

* $32M to the Prague Civil Society Centre

* $40M for “gender equality and women empowerment hub”

* $14M for “improving public procurement” in Serbia

* $486M to the “Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening,” including $22M for “inclusive and participatory political process” in Moldova and $21M for voter turnout in India

* $29M to “strengthening political landscape in Bangladesh”

* $20M for “fiscal federalism” in Nepal

* $19M for “biodiversity conversation” in Nepal

* $1.5M for “voter confidence” in Liberia

* $14M for “social cohesion” in Mali

* $2.5M for “inclusive democracies in Southern Africa”

* $47M for “improving learning outcomes in Asia”

* $2M to develop “sustainable recycling models” to “increase socio-economic cohesion among marginalized communities of Kosovo Roma, Ashkali, and Egypt”

* $17M to an NGO (non-governmental agency) to produce a knockoff Muppet show in Iraq (which ended up getting 200 views per episode)

The Dept. of Education and the National Institutes of Health 

Selected head-scratchers:

* $370M on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs

* A $419,470 university study to “determine if lonely rats seek cocaine more than happy rats”

* $2M in government grants handed to Cornell University to infect cats with COVID-19 (When the experiments were over, the cats were killed.)

* $288,563 in taxpayer money to create “affinity groups’’ among birdwatchers based on “who they are and how they identify’’

* And my favorite: a $10,000 grant to the National Endowment for the Arts for The Bearded Ladies Cabaret – a “queer cabaret arts organization”– to support its “climate change-themed ice-skating performances”

The Defense Dept. and the Pentagon 

The Pentagon’s $850 billion budget is in DOGE’s target range. There’s no doubt that some percentage of that is being misspent or spent unwisely. And that’s hardly news.

* The Defense Business Board found in 2015 that the Dept. of Defense could save $125 billion over five years by renegotiating service contracts and consolidating bureaucratic processes.

* A congressional inquiry in 2018 found that the Air Force was spending $1,300 for each reheatable coffee cup aboard one of its aircraft. The Air Force spent $32,000 replacing 25 cups, according to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

* A two-year audit by the Defense Department Inspector General last year found that Boeing overcharged the Air Force by 8,000% for soap dispensers. They overpaid by $149,072.

The Environmental Protection Agency 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), inspired by DOGE’s crackdown on federal spending, said it had located $20 billion in tax dollars within the agency that the Biden administration reportedly “knew they were wasting.”

The EPA found that just eight agencies were controlling the distribution of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to different entities “at their discretion,” such as the Climate United Fund, which reportedly received just under $7 billion.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

You may have heard that FEMA gave over $59 million to house illegal immigrants in luxury New York City hotels just last week. That turned out to be not entirely true, as only $19 million of it was for direct hotel costs, and none of the hotels were luxury.

So, what does it all amount to? 

So far, DOGE has reported that it has uncovered nearly $1 trillion worth of inefficiency, waste, and/or fraud that occurred in Biden’s last year in office, plus $900 billion that occurred in 2021. There will be, as there has been already, some too-early assumptions about corruption, but it’s hard to argue with the gross facts: one trillion dollars and counting.

Is ICE Following Campaign Promises? 
Or Is Homan on a Deportation Bender? 

Tom Homan, President Trump’s newly appointed border czar, has been busy since Jan. 20, rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants.

In repeated public statements, he’s said that ICE’s priority at the outset will be going after immigrants that were let into the country with criminal records or have committed crimes since entering or otherwise present a safety threat to US citizens or to the security of the country.

None of the mainstream media is objecting to that strategy, per se. But since Trump’s election, they have been suggesting that it is a ruse – that the true aim is to deport immigrants indiscriminately, including peaceful, law-abiding people that have been here for many years, some of whom are raising families and even paying taxes.

I believe that there should be a path to citizenship for such people. And it should be a safe and speedy one.

Keep in mind that our economy is currently running on a large population of “undocumented” workers. Maybe in 10 years, all such work with be done with AI and robotics, but until that is a reality, we need to keep these people working. But legally.

Anyway…

Let’s take a deep breath, put aside our feelings of anger or virtue, and look at the facts…

* As of 2022, 77% of the immigrants in this country were here legally, with 49% becoming naturalized citizens.

* In 2023, the US recorded a record-breaking foreign-born population of 47.3 million, meaning immigrants accounted for 14.3% of the population.

* Between Jan. 21 and Jan. 23 of this year, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested many individuals on charges or convictions including sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and drug offenses. They included nationals from a slew of countries, including Afghanistan, Angola, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Senegal, and Venezuela.

* ICE also issued nearly 400 detainers, which are requests to notify ICE when undocumented individuals are released from custody. The requests targeted individuals charged with severe crimes such as homicide, sexual assault, and robbery.

* A Honduran national, Franklin Osorto-Cruz, was convicted of driving while intoxicated. He was arrested in New York.

* A Jamaican national, Kamaro Denver Haye, was arrested for “promoting a sexual performance by a child less than 17 years of age and possessing sexual performance by child less than 16 years of age.”

* On Jan. 22, ICE-ERO New York City arrested Jose Roberto Rodriguez-Urbina, a 22-year-old citizen of El Salvador and alleged MS-13 gang member.

* In Boston, Bill Melugin, a Fox News reporter, said he witnessed ICE Boston make eight arrests, including murder and rape suspects and a volatile Haitian gang member with 18 convictions who told cameras that he “ain’t going back to Haiti” and “f— Trump, Biden forever!”

* An inadmissible Mexican national, Adan Pablo-Ramirez, was arrested in Illinois with convictions for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

* A Mexican national, Jesus Perez, was arrested in Salt Lake City and charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a child.

* Colombian national Andres Orjuela Parra was arrested in San Francisco. He has a conviction for sexual penetration with a foreign object on an unaware victim.

* A Mexican national, Jesus Baltazar Mendoza, was convicted of 2nd degree assault of a child. He was arrested in St. Paul.

* Six unauthorized immigrants from Guatemala were arrested in Miami, with criminal histories including battery, child abuse, fraud, resisting arrest, DWI, trespassing, and vandalism.

Is all of that an indication that ICE does not intend to arrest and deport unauthorized aliens that are not public threats? Here is what Homan has publicly stated on that issue:

“Right out of the gate it’s public safety threats, those who are in the country illegally that have been convicted, arrested for serious crime. But let me be clear. There’s not only public safety threats that will be arrested, because in sanctuary cities, we’re not allowed to get that public safety threat in the jail, which means we got to go to the neighborhood and find him. They will be arrested too.”

And this:

“I’m being realistic. We can do what we can with the money we have. We’re going to try to be efficient, but with more money we have, the more we can accomplish.”

Do Rich People Pay Their “Fair Share” of Taxes? 

Judge for yourself:

* The top 1% of income-tax filers in 2022 earned 20% of total earnings but paid 40% of all tax revenue the IRS collected.

* The top 10% of income-tax filers in 2022 earned 27% of total earnings but paid 70% of total tax revenues the IRS collected.

* The top 25% of income-tax filers in 2022 earned 60% of all income but paid 88% of total tax revenues the IRS collected.

* While the bottom 50% of income-tax filers in 2022 earned 70% of all but about 12% of total earnings but paid only 4% of total tax revenues the IRS collected.

Note: These figures overstate the actual income-tax burden shouldered by the bottom 50%, because “refundable” credits paid to those with no tax liability are treated as spending and aren’t reflected in the IRS numbers. This means tens of millions of Americans have income-tax rates that are effectively negative. That is, they get what amounts to a welfare check from the government.

Click here.