Yes, the executive branch can decide how that money is spent. But it was intended to be spent. DOGE is simply arbitraging the recission period for political capital.
And I’m quite confident I’m not going out on a limb when I say line items for “DEI in Serbia” would never make it through congress.
Why not? You might (or might not) recall the US became heavily involved in a war in the Balkans 30 years ago the point of carrying out an extensive bombing campaign. To the extent that the US has an interest in that region being peaceful and the countries there staying or becoming more aligned with US geopolitical and economic interests, a small subsidy to that end may make strategic sense.
Bombing, peacekeeping, and reconstruction costs for the Balkan war ran into the tens of billions. A few million a year to nurture a more pluralistic civil society in the region (and thereby increase trade flows with the US) seems cheap by comparison.
And I’m quite confident I’m not going out on a limb when I say line items for “DEI in Serbia” would never make it through congress.
Why not? You might (or might not) recall the US became heavily involved in a war in the Balkans 30 years ago the point of carrying out an extensive bombing campaign. To the extent that the US has an interest in that region being peaceful and the countries there staying or becoming more aligned with US geopolitical and economic interests, a small subsidy to that end may make strategic sense.
Bombing, peacekeeping, and reconstruction costs for the Balkan war ran into the tens of billions. A few million a year to nurture a more pluralistic civil society in the region (and thereby increase trade flows with the US) seems cheap by comparison.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/15/balkans https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/usa/partner/s...