Click Bait

**The post you're referring to appears to be sensationalized or misleading clickbait.** 

Marco Rubio **is** the current U.S. Secretary of State (sworn in on January 21, 2025, after unanimous Senate confirmation), and the Trump administration has indeed pursued aggressive reforms to U.S. foreign aid. This includes major cuts, a shift away from NGOs (often called the "NGO industrial complex" in official statements), folding remaining aid functions into the State Department, and even withdrawing from numerous international organizations seen as wasteful or misaligned with U.S. interests.

However, there is **no evidence of a specific "historic deal" signed with the United Nations** in early January 2026 that completely ends all additional U.S. contributions to UN-related foreign aid or the broader "Foreign Aid Industrial Complex" as described in the viral post.

### What Has Actually Happened (Based on Recent Developments)

The administration has taken several bold steps on foreign aid and international involvement:

- **Overhaul of foreign aid delivery**: Starting in 2025, USAID was effectively dismantled or severely reduced, with most programs transferred to (or cut by) the State Department under Rubio. Aid is now more targeted, limited, and directed toward U.S. national interests — often bypassing NGOs to deliver funds directly to partner governments (e.g., early examples mentioned include Kenya for health initiatives). Rubio has repeatedly criticized NGOs for high overhead costs, inefficiency, and sometimes promoting agendas contrary to U.S. priorities.

- **Withdrawals from international bodies**: In early January 2026 (around January 7), the U.S. announced withdrawal from **66 international organizations** (some UN-affiliated) deemed redundant, mismanaged, or harmful to U.S. sovereignty. Rubio stated these were "wasteful, poorly run, [or] captured by interests contrary to our own." This is part of a broader "America First" push, including slashing billions in foreign assistance and criticizing past aid for yielding little return (e.g., low UN voting alignment from major recipients).

- **Specific UN-related reforms**: There have been mentions of updated agreements or MOUs with UN entities (like OCHA for humanitarian aid) to impose stricter reforms, reduce bloat, and ensure U.S. funds aren't wasted on inefficiency or anti-American agendas. Rubio emphasized that the U.S. remains the world's largest humanitarian donor but will no longer tolerate waste — with conditions like cutting duplication and improving accountability.

These actions have sparked controversy: critics warn of humanitarian fallout (e.g., project closures, risks to global health/security), while supporters praise it as ending taxpayer-funded inefficiency.

### About the Source in the Post

The linked website (**ifeg.info**) is not a credible or established news outlet. It appears to be a low-quality aggregator or content farm publishing sensational "news and tips" stories on unrelated topics (e.g., celebrity philanthropy, scientific curiosities, political takedowns). The article exaggerates and dramatizes real policy shifts into a single "historic deal" that doesn't match reported facts — classic clickbait designed to drive traffic.

In short: **Yes, there's a real and significant U.S. foreign aid shift under Secretary Rubio — more direct, limited, and skeptical of NGOs/UN bloat.** But the viral claim of a brand-new, sweeping UN deal ending contributions outright (as phrased) is overhyped and not accurate. Always cross-check viral "breaking" posts like this against official State Department releases or reputable outlets! If you have more details or want sources on a specific aspect, let me know.

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

https://x.com/i/status/2009325344797675763

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

That's all you get

The saying "all you get is a ham sandwich" is a variation of the phrase that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," which was popularized by former New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler in 1985. [1, 2]  

Origin and Meaning 

• Origin: Wachtler used the phrase in 1985 to express his view that the grand jury system should be abolished because grand juries were overly deferential to prosecutors. He argued that district attorneys had so much influence they could convince a grand jury to indict even "a ham sandwich," implying that the standard of proof required for an indictment (probable cause) was too low. The phrase became famous a few years later when quoted by Tom Wolfe in his novel The Bonfire of the Vanities. 

• Meaning: The expression highlights a perceived lack of independent judgment within the grand jury system, suggesting that a prosecutor can obtain an indictment against virtually anyone or anything, regardless of the flimsiness of the evidence. 

• Wachtler's Regret: Wachtler, who is Jewish, later commented that he regretted using "ham" for the analogy and wished he had chosen a "pastrami sandwich" instead, for reasons of kashrut (Jewish dietary laws). [1, 2, 3, 4]  

Variations 

The core idea has been adapted into other contexts, such as: 

• Describing a meager or underwhelming reward (e.g., "After all that work, all you get is a ham sandwich"). 

• Police slang in some areas, referring to a "drop gun" or false evidence planted by corrupt officers to frame a suspect. [1, 5, 6]  

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/why-a-ham-sandwich

[2] https://www.luceropc.com/the-ham-sandwich-an-indictment

[3] https://www.luceropc.com/the-ham-sandwich-an-indictment

[4] https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-phrase-You-re-such-a-ham-come-from

[5] https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-ham-sandwich

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham_sandwich

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Simple Fixes #mcre1 - Spencer will like this -

 Time to Scrap Topeka's Public Comment Sign-Up Barrier

Back in 2025, during my mayoral run, I blogged about how public comment at Topeka City Council meetings isn't ruled by vague "common law" — it's set by local rules and the Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA). Read it here.
Now, in 2026, those rules still choke citizen input. To speak, you must notify the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. the day of the meeting — or sign up in person before 6:00 p.m. No true walk-ups. No spontaneous voice on emerging issues.This must change. Eliminate mandatory sign-up. Let anyone at the meeting speak on any issue.Why the Current Rules Fail

• Kills spontaneity: Issues erupt during discussions. A resident shows up fired up — but can't speak without prior notice. Working folks, parents, and last-minute attendees get silenced.
• Unnecessary hurdle: Many Kansas cities allow on-site sign-up throughout. Topeka's stricter policy isn't required by state law.
• Low turnout: Pre-registration discourages participation, weakening democracy.

State Law Backs Open AccessKOMA demands open meetings but doesn't require public comment at all. Since Topeka offers it, rules are local choice. Broader access honors KOMA's core: informed electorate through transparency.Benefits of Walk-Up Comment

• Boosts engagement: More voices, better decisions.
• Real-time feedback: Council hears direct reactions.
• Fairer process: Levels the field for all residents.

Simple FixesAmend Governing Body Rules:

• Drop the 5:00 p.m. deadline.
• Allow in-person sign-up anytime during the meeting.
• Permit brief comments on agenda items as they arise (chair's discretion).
• Keep safeguards: 4-minute limits, no personal attacks, orderly conduct.

This isn't revolutionary — it's basic openness. In my campaign, voters demanded a louder voice. Let's deliver.
Contact your Council member now. Demand true public comment. Topeka deserves it.

 https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/1258170458429740785?guests=1&adults=1&s=2&unique_share_id=1a6eed69-a100-4310-9eb2-8480efa6c14a