Stonewall loss of jobs and funding after US aid cuts

Thanks @GrumpyPanda detailed and clear

Good questions. Just two points from my own experience in the sector.

One, projects of this sort - womens equality, LGB and T rights, natiknal minorities - are in fact frequently tendered by small-scale domestic organisations. (You'll still get the same debate on whether we as the global North are imposing our priorities - I just commented on that right above.)

Two., the main reason this doesn't happen for all of them is that it's incredibly hard to award and administer (including financial control) large amounts of funding in this fashion. We're also talking about small-scale groups often deficient in specific types of expertise (tendering, accountancy, also specific training content.) So established actors such as Save the Children - for all their problems - do have a role to play.

They're not, as such. From what the Times piece says, Stonewall acted as the contractor on various projects in CEE/Caucasus paid from USAID donor funds. I've done work in the aid sector in those countries, and that's a complete ordinary setup. You'll get international donors - World Bank, EU, etc etc - setting up competitions for specific projects and various often international organisations - World Vision, Save the Children and any number of others - bidding for them and implementing them if successful.

Can't say anything about the content of those projects of course, and most definitely don't agree with Stonewall's domestic agenda. That said, I've spent several years in Georgia and the homophobia is truly atrocious, with trans barely on the horizon. To make things worse, homophobia is in turn fostered and augmented by foreign sponsors including the super dubious "World Council of Families." So I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt for those activities until I'm shown otherwise from concrete Terms of References.

There is a debate to be had to what extent donor priorities distort organic civil society development- a controversy that above all has been raging in the women's sector these past two decades at least. E.g. should we be funding anti-traficking programmes and the like when that probably wouldn't be the first item on the agenda for most domestic actors. That's a tricky one though. Imagine the moral relativism if applied to, say, Afghanistan. It also imo overidealises the grassroots character of civil society development in Western societies.

Yes I think that it is exactly, and in fact what brings groups that are probably doing good work into disrepute.

Because too many are seen as just being part of a self serving gravy chain.

I think it would be good to be able to get rid of the leeches sucking the blood out of important issue.

But I very much doubt that either Musk (who isn't even an actual official just Trump's pet monkey) or Trump would even know.

Two entrenched MRAs are not fit for purpose.

Although part of me suspects that Trump is wilely enough that if the shit hits the fan he will just dump Musk.

I suspect stonewall used their relationship with the government to imply expertise, rather than claim it directly.

Having so many public sector organisations in their inclusive index or whatever its called, ruth hunt given a peerage, the government teasing the idea of increased trans rights, all gave the illusion that stonewall was best placed to help companies comply with the very confusing laws.

maybe the money could be transferred to Sex Matters and others?

I am delighted. Hope it helps shuts them down. They have moved so far away from the excellent work of their past.

They could have worked to help trans people have a good place in society, but all they have done is massively hindered them with the kowtowing to the extremists in the cohort.

Calling lesbians sexual racists, that alone should have been the end of it.

It is a tainted and poisoned entity.

Billionaire Elon Musk and President Donald Trump are also ramping up their behavior even as the public is starting to turn against the government cuts that are badly hurting American veterans, American farmers, and U.S. medical research. The courts keep ruling against their efforts and their claims of finding “waste, fraud, and abuse” are being widely debunked. Rather than rethinking their course in the face of opposition, they seem to be becoming more belligerent.

On Saturday, Trump urged Musk to be “more aggressive” in cutting the government, although the White House has told a court that Musk has no authority and is only a presidential advisor. “Will do, Mr. President,” Musk replied. He then posted a command to federal employees: “Consistent with [Trump’s] instructions, all federal employees will shortly receive an email requesting to understand what they got done last week. Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.” Shortly after, emails went out giving workers 48 hours to list five things they had accomplished in the past week.

This sparked outrage among Americans who noted that Musk has spent 24 hours tweeting more than 220 times and engaged in public fights with two of the mothers of his children while allegedly running companies and overhauling the government, while Trump spent at least 12 nights at Mar-a-Lago in his first 29 days in office. S.V. Date of HuffPost noted on February 18 that Trump has played golf at one of his own properties on 9 of his first 30 days in office and that Trump’s golf outings had already cost the American taxpayer $10.7 million.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-23-2025

Even if nothing else, anyone who thinks Trump's appointment of Musk is appropriate, can only be someone who thinks its okay for one business man to help another one strengthen their stranglehold over competitors by giving him access to their records, must think that running a country like a greedy corporate is better than sometimes failing attempts at democratic accountability.

Sweeping away DEI is one thing. Sweeping away employment rights is something totally different.

Just to repeat the money that Stonewall got is NOT all US money.

For some reason a US government body administered what is in fact a global fund of money. Why the US was ever allowed to administer it is mind boggling as they have never had a grasp of the fact that other countries exist and dont share US "values".

So irrespective of Stonewall it is up to the other countries that provide money for this fund to either set up their own fund of challenge (as everybody else is) the legality of an EO that limits how their money is used.

And in fact the more mad Trump is the better it is in the long term, although vulnerable people will suffer in the short term.

It is unacceptable, as it is with Russia that for instance the UK can block decisions in the UN. Not that I am a fan of the UN but it is a daily insult to every other country who are constantly being told they aren't democratic enough and yet on the big issue they are told you dont have a voice.

But there seems to be a blind spot in the US itself. Supposedly celebrating getting rid of being under the control of a monarchy and now apparently adoring a man who wants to make himself supreme leaders unaccountable to anyone and in breach of the US constitution.

So next time the "west" who see themselves as the leaders in democracy set something up, lets hope they reflect on what went wrong with the institutions they thought would stop another Hitler.

Well there is that too but first one in would be good for under .5m post windup after that its £7

American taxes pay for the world
Remind me again where America gets its money from? You can't go too protectionist, it backfires.
But I'm quite pleased with the current effect on Stonewall.

One of the interesting things about USAID is that it was created by executive order under the JFK administration and it was only 37 years later that Congress got round to passing legislation putting it on a statutory basis.

It obviously isn't ideal to have regulations being changed by executive order, with a whiplash back when the next party gets into the White House, but if you've a feckless Congress that's abdicated most of its power to the executive branch since before most of us were born, that's what's going to happen.

It's almost as if Obama didn't say "I have a phone and a pen".

There was the budwiser sales drops tracking as polling data ( that is in the States were it was unlikely to have voters buying it for target shooting )

But it would be bad PR to sue. And possibly pointless if they are broke.

No and maybe

because they would not be providing legal advice and if an organisation has broken the law and had a financial or reputational loss they cant sue as they picked the wrong provider.

But the Allison Bailey case had a ruling that some of their advice /lobbying could be actionable. But it would be bad PR to sue.

Pretty much. Just look at mn, for the last few years this belief you could deride and get US to pay

What did they think would happen

American taxes pay for the world and Americans and America are always talked of as being a horrible country and culture. Some of them obviously had enough. Good for them and hope they dismantle all organisations like Stonewall.

I'm yet to see DOGE proving any waste at all.
Sacking federal employees - 35% of whom are veterans - will not play well.
Yes some of USAID was badly spent
but not all
Some of the documents "shared" by Musk are kindergarten level photoshop

I listened to that as well, I'm getting a bit concerned about the direction the economist's coverage is going. I read the mag and listen to the podcasts because they seemed to be the only news publication that was still trying to be impartial, but since Trump got elected, they're starting to show sign's of TDS.

They did say in the podcast that it's only been a month since DOGE started cleaning house, which I agree with, it's to soon to say whether they're saving money or wasting more.

Given that Stonewall has been very critical of the choice the majority of the USA tax payers made when they voted for Trump, it's only right they lose the funding from the USA's tax payers.

There was one random poll in a particular state that had Harris ahead and some of the lefty commentators (Rory Stewart I'm looking at you) leapt on that as the gospel truth.

Total wish fulfilment and echo chamber affirmation.

I don't think it's clear whether Trump is breaking the constitution or not, there are many lies about him and there seems to be a legal debate over this. I certainly don't believe the many Trump derangement syndrome articles. Usually it's the same people who'll argue 6ft 5 convicted male paedophile K Dolatowski is a woman so I no longer think the majority of the media have moral authority nor believe them.

In many ways his break with Europe could be said to be quite like what the founding fathers did - they were revolutionary in their vision for America and did not accept that their country had to carry on as it always had sending wealth back to English kings.

It was an absolute given in certain left-wing quarters that Harris was going to win.

I don't know why. The polls were neck-and-neck, but we'd already seen in the 2016 election that many Trump supporters refused to talk to pollsters, skewing the polls in favour of the Democrats. Harris had the disadvantage of having been VP for four years but achieving very little in that time, despite Biden being so feeble. Trump's big advantage is that everyone knew who he was. (Other advantages too, obviously, but having that kind of instant recognition seems to be important.)

Stonewall got away with not being held responsible for Garden Court Chambers' actions in the Alison Bailey case, if I remember rightly.

AFAIK there hasn't yet been an instance of an employer trying to sue Stonewall for giving advice that led to that employer losing an employment tribunal to its financial detriment.

But then, would any employer captured enough to seek advice/approval from Stonewall ever blame them? I expect they'd rather blame the tribunal, the law, anyone really.

It was an absolute given in certain left-wing quarters that Harris was going to win and they were horrified when she didn't. I can absolutely see why she didn't. Biden was always presented as a bridging president; one that would hand over to someone else after his first term. But he didn't, he clung on in there despite it being obvious to anyone that he was not at all capable of the job any more. The man needed diagrams as to how to walk on and off a stage, for Christ's sake. Harris was then parachuted in at the last minute, which a lot of people disagreed with.

In addition, a lot of left wing politics are luxury beliefs to many. Net Zero isn't great if you work in in affected industry - parts of America are still heavily industrialised or at least were in the recent past, and that industrialisation is part of the identity of those who live in those areas. Are you going to vote to have your job taken away? They feel left behind, as do huge chunks of the US. Those who don't want boys in girls' sports feel shut out of discussions by dint of being called transphobic. There are those who - rightly or wrongly - want to see immigration controlled. And for the US to be more prosperous. And so it goes on.

The Trump campaign ran a brilliant (in the sense of its effectiveness, regardless of whether I agree with Trumpism or not) that said "Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you". Absolutely nailed it.

Trump listened to them when the left stuck its fingers in its ears and shouted "La, la, la I can't hear you, bigot". The left only has itself to blame.

Similar to putting a disclaimer on horoscopes saying "this service is provided for entertainment purposes only"