Get the latest Boston sports news
Receive updates on your favorite Boston teams, straight from our newsroom to your inbox.
In November 2022, Dean Karlan was hired to be the first Chief Economist at USAID. His role and that of his 30-plus staff was to help design more cost-effective programs and to help the agency produce more evidence to guide future policies.
As he puts it: “I came to help choose effective programs to get more bang for our buck.”
After more than two years on the job, Karlan resigned yesterday. “I literally just emailed USAID and told them, ‘I hereby cancel the contract,’” he explained to NPR. “And that was it. No fanfare.”
Karlan, a professor of economics at Northwestern and the founder of Innovations for Poverty Action, spoke with NPR about his tenure at the embattled agency and his decision to leave. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
You’ve held a variety of other roles in the development space. Why did you take on this position at USAID?
Two reasons.
I worked in development in the early ’90s and I found myself asking again and again: Is this working? Why are we doing it this way and not that way? How can we make this better?
And I was struck by the lack of evidence, frankly, in the way development was done. And this very much inspired me to get a Ph.D. in economics and do research on understanding what works and what doesn’t, all with the mindset of trying to influence policy.
So I would have been the world’s biggest hypocrite if USAID knocked on my door and said, “Would you like to come help improve the way we use evidence to guide our decision making?” And I said, “Yeah, no thanks.”
The second answer is just the basic math. When I think about my time and what I do professionally, sure, I’ve produced less research for the past two and a half years. But what is the impact of that research relative to the number of dollars that we could move toward more effective programs?
There’s no way my individual research papers have that much influence.
Did USAID evaluate its programs before hiring you?
Yes, historically, USAID has evaluated its programs based on accountability. That is, did the thousand people intended to receive a program actually get it? That’s a very different question than: Did the program work? Did it actually change lives? That’s more complicated. But that’s what we were trying to champion because that’s ultimately what we care about.
What was it like when you took on this new kind of job for USAID?
I was greeted by many talented people who were enthusiastic about the kinds of changes that I was hoping to help lead. And there’s no way we would have accomplished what we did without their collaboration and support.
For a long while, the field of foreign aid and development didn’t have the evidence it needed to understand how to inform programs and make them more cost effective. But the world has changed a lot in the past 20 years and we’ve seen a huge increase in the quantity of careful program evaluations.
Now we have a great deal more evidence to know what works and what doesn’t to fight poverty. And while USAID was using that evidence when I arrived, there’s a lot of areas where it could improve its program design by doing a better job at synthesizing what’s out there. That was my job.
And when we took that approach, we had already begun moving the needle in how programs were designed to follow more tightly the evidence and produce more evidence on cost effectiveness.
For instance, we were working on a set of resilience awards for rural areas in sub-Saharan Africa where households are particularly prone to the vulnerabilities of drought or flood. The awards, totaling about half a billion dollars, help these individuals develop their own income-generating activity, which contributes to local economic development. This program has been evaluated repeatedly by me and others with very strong results in terms of household income, food security, and it actually reduces the need for future humanitarian support. Our office had been working with Uganda and Ethiopia to help build out these programs and take them to new places.
The second thing I came to do was to help build a discipline of transparency and documentation of impact so that USAID could learn how to improve over time by learning from its own programs — both its successes and failures — to understand more about what’s working and what’s not.
In your view, what makes for a healthy USAID?
The dream way it gets organized is that you are rewarded for carefully learning, sharing that learning, not repeating bad things, scaling up the good and helping others learn from you. And there was a lot of movement and effort to do that.
But that might be just too large of an ask of an aid program that is inevitably baked into a political process.
Once the new administration took over, when did you start to get a sinking feeling about the fate of USAID?
It became clear to me that something big was happening a week after the inauguration when a large swath of 58 senior people at USAID, including me, were all put on administrative leave. Initially, there was no reason given. But even when a reason did surface the next day, it made no sense. No one I knew was doing anything in violation of the executive order. So there was a lot of bewilderment that the stated reason for the administrative leave was likely false.
How were you feeling during this period?
I recognized that we were likely witnessing a blueprint for how to dismantle an agency — and USAID was the first to go. Why USAID? One argument is that the advantages of USAID aren’t seen by most of America.
The benefits are there, of course. But it is true there’s a lot of people in America who don’t see that benefit day to day. And so that makes it easier pickings to test the waters. And that was our first thinking — this is DOGE figuring out how to dismantle an agency, and they’re using USAID as the guinea pig to figure that out.
My feeling of puzzlement then turned into devastation and horror.
Can you unpack those words?
We’re watching psychological warfare against a workforce that has been committed to furthering the lives of other people. This was a career choice they made to help others even if they disagreed about how to improve USAID.
If you want to reform foreign aid, this isn’t the way to do it. This approach is going to radically increase the cost of all future foreign aid. That’s because if you want to work with anybody in the future and you tell them, “No, no, no, this time we’re here. We’re not going to fold on you,” how are you going to convince them of that? When you can’t trust someone, it makes you reluctant to make agreements with them. And that means doing less good with more money to have the same positive impact as we were having before.
There’s a lot of good that USAID has done across the board in terms of health, education, helping farmers, and helping people in crisis.
Now, there are people who are going to be radically worse off and sick and not educated in the same way because of what’s happened. Literally taking people who are in hospitals and stopping treatments because the money is not there.
And not just that — people are going to die. A lot of people.
So we now have a million million tragedies that could have been avoided.
How did you arrive at the decision to resign?
When I first heard that Senator Rubio was nominated to be Secretary of State, I saw that as really good news. He has a long track record of recognizing the value of foreign aid, both for the sake of the humanitarian benefits but also for furthering foreign policy in the United States.
In fact, Rubio has a tweet from a few years ago that says, “Foreign Aid is not charity. We must make sure it is well spent, but it is less than 1% of budget & critical to our national security.”
And so that’s where I was upon his nomination, waiting to see who he would bring in to help put in place actual changes at USAID and hoping that it would align with what he had been saying for the past ten years.
I know that there was a disconnect with the process that was actually undertaken, including a complete stoppage of work and payments. Categorically getting rid of thousands and thousands of people without thinking about their function — just mass layoffs across the entire agency. I was sad and frustrated for the thousands of people who have been stripped of a career dedicated to serving others. How they were demonized. All of it was harming our ability to use foreign aid as a tool for foreign policy. My hope was that maybe there would be a point where Rubio recognized this is too far and stops the carnage.
And you thought you might be able to help somehow?
I’m not saying that I saw great signs of hope based on what was happening on the human resources side in terms of dismantling the workforce. But one of the stated criteria in the executive order is to select programs that are cost effective. That’s why I joined. So I made several overtures to say, “Hey, I’m here to help.”
I was ready to rebuild from wherever we ended up to identify the most effective programs, figure out how to get them back in place, and to recommend new awards.
But I received no response. Zero engagement.
Copyright 2025 NPR
Six years ago, reports about a new coronavirus outbreak on the other side of the globe had been percolating through the news for several months. And then, right about this time, as the winter morphed into spring, the COVID-19 pandemic hit here in Maine. If you were paying attention up to that point, those halcyon days we called normal life were officially over in an unprecedented way.
There was stress and anxiety enough to go around, and the only thing certain in those early days of the rapidly spreading virus was more uncertainty. “Social distancing,” “self-quarantine,” “shelter-in-place,” and “flattening the curve” became part of our daily lexicon. Fortunately, many Mainers were able to find a measure of solace by escaping into the outdoors, something that was thankfully encouraged by our government leaders.
A statement from Gov. Janet Mills declared: “[…] the great outdoors is still open. Please enjoy it safely.” And from Judy Camuso, Maine’s Inland Fisheries and Wildlife commissioner: “During these times, getting outside and enjoying the outdoors is a wonderful way to recharge, while maintain social distancing practices.” I was walking my neighborhood trails daily to keep from going completely stir crazy, so this was easy advice to follow.
People from the urban centers around the state took flight, as did many from the heavily populated regions outside of Maine; all were seeking the wide open spaces, the fresh air, clear skies and healthy sunshine as far from the city as possible. And just like that, the Acadia National Park trailheads here on Mount Desert Island were overflowing. In March, no less. You may have experienced the same where you live.
Too much of a good thing is often, well, too much. My wife and I decided this might be a good opportunity to explore further Down East, beyond Acadia, where there were plenty of trails that few people know about, many we had never even hiked ourselves. And so, trying to make the best of a terrible situation, that’s exactly what we did for many weeks to come, hiking pretty much everything in the region.
Down East Maine encompasses all of Hancock and Washington counties, an area of 4,409 square miles area ranging from Penobscot Bay to the Saint Croix River on the border with New Brunswick. Across this sparsely populated region, at least 10 land trusts have protected lands, and built and maintained trails, in addition to the swaths of state and federal properties that are also available for public recreation.
The Crabtree Neck Land Trust oversees 400 acres in Hancock, and there we found six preserves featuring some 14 miles of hiking. We enjoyed this close-to-home-but-never-been adventure so much that we hiked everything over a couple days. The out-and-back on the Old Pond Railway Trail was by far our favorite, but we also really liked the Ice Pond Preserve and the Carter Beach Corridor.
Scattered over the Down East region are 21 Maine Coast Heritage Trust preserves, most sporting hiking trails. Among these many beauties are two standouts, in my humble opinion, and both are in Lubec. The rugged environs of Boot Head were all about rocky headlands, peat bogs and cobble beaches, while Hamilton Cove was home to all that, plus precipitous cliffs. At each, we reveled in huge views over the Grand Manan Channel.
The hike at Schoodic Bog in Sullivan is a Frenchman Bay Conservancy project that circumnavigates the scenic wetland with fine views of Schoodic Mountain en route. At Ingersoll Point in South Addison, we enjoyed hiking to Carrying Place Cove and Wohoa Bay, thanks to the Downeast Coastal Conservancy. And among the Blue Hill Heritage Trust’s extensive inventory was the sweet figure-eight hike along Patten Stream in Surry.
The COVID pandemic wreaked havoc on every aspect of our society, but if there’s a bright spot to recall from that dark period, it may be the unexpected chance many of us had to recreate in the great outdoors. The wonders my wife and I discovered as we wandered about Down East during those unsettling times remain today, and I invite you to visit and experience some of this amazing beauty for yourself this spring. Enjoy, and leave no trace.
Carey Kish of Mount Desert Island is a Triple Crown hiker, freelance writer and author of three hiking guides. Connect with Carey on Facebook and Instagram and at [email protected].
Boston Celtics
The crowd was loud, the number of jerseys with his name on the back were plentiful, and Cooper Flagg was back in New England for his first game at TD Garden as an NBA player Friday night.
Flagg, whom the Mavericks selected with the No. 1 overall pick in last year’s draft, grew up in Maine rooting for the Celtics. Boston was as close to a hometown team as he could get back then.
During his postgame press conference, Flagg was asked what the crowd was like and whether or not he’d like to experience it from the other side as a Celtic one day.
“Nah, I love being a Maverick,” Flagg said. “That’s home and I don’t want anything else. It was incredible to be able to play here, obviously this is the place where I came as a kid and got to watch, so I think it’s going to be incredibly fun for the rest of my career for me to be able to come here and playin front of this crowd.”
Flagg, who is in the first year of his rookie deal, likely won’t hit free agency until 2030. Bringing him to Boston before then would probably have to involve a trade. He is under contract for next season, and the Mavericks have a club option for 2028 and 2029.
With Flagg averaging 20.3 points and 6.5 rebounds as a rookie with room for his game to grow, hanging onto him as long as possible seems like the logical move for Dallas unless something unexpected happens.
Despite losing to the Celtics by 20 points during Jayson Tatum’s return, Flagg seemed to enjoy the experience of playing in Boston.
“I had a lot of people come up from back home. Having that experience was really cool,” Flagg said. “The energy was incredible tonight, obviously, with Jayson coming back. The energy was great, it’s an incredible environment and an incredible place to play.”
His time in Texas is just beginning, and this isn’t the Mavericks’ last trip to TD Garden. But, there’s nothing like the first one, and this was a moment that Flagg wanted to savor.
“It meant a lot. I tried to take a moment to take a deep breath and take it all in,” Flagg said. “It’s a dream come true just being out there on that court competing and playing at a high level. It’s really special.”
Receive updates on your favorite Boston teams, straight from our newsroom to your inbox.
PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s catch of lobsters declined for the fourth straight year, state fishing regulators said Friday, as the industry continued to grapple with soaring business costs, inflation and a changing ocean.
The haul of lobsters, Maine’s best known export and a key piece of the state’s identity and culture, has declined every year since 2021, and some scientists have cited as a reason warming oceans that spur migration to Canadian waters.
The sector brought in 78.8 million pounds (35.7 million kilograms) of lobsters in 2025, down from more than 110 million pounds (49.9 million kilograms) in 2021, regulators said. It was the lowest total since 2008.
Inflation hit the industry hard last year, and there were more than 21,000 fewer fishing trips than in 2024, according to Carl Wilson, commissioner of the Maine Department of Marine Resources. Market uncertainty due to tariffs and a late start to the busy portion of the fishing season also played roles, he said.
“This combination of factors likely contributed to the decline from 2024 to 2025 in the lobster harvest of more than eight million pounds and a decrease in the overall value of more than $75 million,” Wilson said in a statement.
The vast majority of the country’s lobsters are caught in waters off Maine, though they are also trapped elsewhere in New England.
The overall catch, among the most lucrative in the U.S., is frequently worth more than $500 million at the docks each year. Last year it was more than $461 million.
The southern New England lobster fishery has been declared depleted by regulators for years. That decline happened as waters warmed off Rhode Island and southern Massachusetts, and scientists have warned that the trend could be repeating off Maine. The crustaceans are sensitive to changes in temperature, particularly when young but also throughout their lives.
Last year the regulatory Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission said lobster populations have shown “rapid decline in abundance in recent years” in key areas and declared the species to be experiencing overfishing. Environmental groups have called for tighter regulation of the fishery.
Some members of the industry have pushed back on that assessment and say fishermen are already restricted by regulations meant to conserve the lobsters and save endangered whales.
Last year’s catch was still relatively high compared with historic numbers, up from typically 50 million to 70 million pounds (about 23 million to 32 million kilograms) in the 2000s and even less in the decade before that.
The industry saw a boom in the 2010s, when hauls were over 100 million pounds (45 million kilograms) per year, topping out at more than 132 million pounds (60 million kilograms) in 2016.
While prices remained high for both consumers and dealers, the high cost of necessities such as fuel and gear made for “not a very profitable season,” said John Drouin, who fishes out of Cutler.
But it was not all bad news, as lobsters were trapped more consistently than the prior year, said Steve Train, who is based out of Long Island.
“Hauling was more consistent, with less peaks and valleys, and the price was higher in the summer months,” Train said. “But I think I landed a little less.”
Lobsters remain readily available in restaurants and seafood markets, though prices have been high. They typically sold for $3 to $5 per pound at the dock in the 2010s and have been more than $6 per pound in some recent years. Last year the price at the dock was $5.85 per pound.
Setting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
Massachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
AM showers Sunday in Maryland
Florida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
Pa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
2 Survivors Describe the Terror and Tragedy of the Tahoe Avalanche
After F.B.I. Raid, Los Angeles School Board Discusses Superintendent