Trump DOGE and Foreign Policy Follies

Paul Krugman's discussion on the privacy invasion involved with DOGE (remain that?) reminds me of a 1970s Supreme Court opinion that upheld a regulation of prescription drugs. 

The opinion has helpful dicta spelling out the contours of the right to privacy. It noted:

A final word about issues we have not decided. We are not unaware of the threat to privacy implicit in the accumulation of vast amounts of personal information in computerized data banks or other massive government files. [Footnote 34] 

The collection of taxes, the distribution of welfare and social security benefits, the supervision of public health, the direction of our Armed Forces, and the enforcement of the criminal laws all require the orderly preservation of great quantities of information, much of which is personal in character and potentially embarrassing or harmful if disclosed. 

The right to collect and use such data for public purposes is typically accompanied by a concomitant statutory or regulatory duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures. 

Recognizing that, in some circumstances, that duty arguably has its roots in the Constitution, nevertheless New York's statutory scheme, and its implementing administrative procedures, evidence a proper concern with, and protection of, the individual's interest in privacy. 

We therefore need not, and do not, decide any question which might be presented by the unwarranted disclosure.

[Paragraph breaks added.]

DOGE had other problems, including the horrible effects of the stripping of foreign aid, which led to a "legacy of death." More State Department news:

State Department Human Rights Reports Will Have Changed Focus

One article cited provides a taste:

The Trump administration is overhauling the State Department’s annual reports on global human rights, emphasizing entitlements “given to us by God, our creator” and issuing new guidance for U.S. diplomats to scrutinize the prevalence of abortion and gender-transition surgery among children.

We are told that the Trumpies provided an "unapologetically U.S.-centric and religiously tinged view of human rights." "U.S.-centric" here is akin to "value voters" in 2004 or often "Christian" today -- it means "a certain breed of conservative." 

For instance, the inability to obtain trans care and abortion services is not likely to get similar scrutiny. On some level, different administrations are likely to have different values here. Still, it's useful to not use supposedly neutral terms that are applied selectively. 

The general idea that this administration can be trusted with human rights has a feel of entrusting foxes with the rights of chickens. Happy Early Thanksgiving.