The recent whittling down of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under former President Donald Trump’s administration has sparked a considerable dispute. At the heart of the controversy lies the question: does the USAID use American taxpayers’ money to promote international humanitarian causes, or is it feeding a leviathan dealing with corruption and extravagant spending?
In January, a significant shift took place as Trump’s administration suspended USAID activities and in effect assimilated the agency within the U.S. Department of State. This move, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was aimed at expelling inefficient or deceitful global aid operations. He assured the public that there existed ample instances of such activities.
The decision led to the reduction of staff numbers on a grand scale, a discontinuation of over 90% USAID’s worldwide aid contracts, and a withdrawal of nearly 15,000 aid grants, which in a single week, amounted to about $60 billion. Critics from the Democrat side have reproached Trump, alleging that his actions have risked and politicized crucial humanitarian work executed by the agency.
According to a global conflict specialist from the prestigious University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, the merging of USAID with the State Department could be detrimental. The argument put forward was concerning the agency’s relative independence enabling it to manage intricate aid operations, a capability potentially absent in the State Department.
The expert raised significant points, emphasizing that other government departments lack the necessary experience to run complex initiatives. The question posed was: how do you handle a large-scale operation, distributing food, cash, or medical supplies in unstable regions? The expert stressed that the integration could result in a significant loss of operational know-how.
Historical attempts by older administrations to unite the State or Defense with USAID’s missions led to the obscurity of aid distribution responsibilities in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. However, it was reiterated that impracticality isn’t the sole problem.
When humanitarian aid is politicized or becomes a close associate of the U.S. government, the security of aid workers on the ground is compromised, making them more susceptible to being targeted. The statement was made: ‘Aid workers are considered safe as long as they are not deemed as political players’. However, the line seems to blur as aid becomes more entwined with military and national security aims, making aid workers more vulnerable.
There has been an increase in aid worker fatalities over the last quarter-century, an occurrence that is not entirely linear. A surge was noted last year, linked primarily to the situation in Gaza. This has led to critics of the restructure arguing that the politicization of aid work is not only potential but that it is already a built-in problem inside USAID.
This argument has been used by many Republicans to validate the restructuring or even outright abolition of USAID, as per Trump’s decision. The agency has previously been criticized for its support of various controversial matters such as diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives, electric automobiles, contraception, LGBTQ+ activism, and even armed subversive groups globally.
State Department terminated numerous USAID contracts and awards including a $252 million initiative promoting climate adaptation in developing nations, an $83 million plan expanding renewable energy projects in Nigeria, and a $57 million project aimed at enhancing ‘community resilience’ and preventing violence in Tunisia.
However, several essential programs have also reportedly been cut, generating further controversy. Among these were a $131 million UNICEF grant for polio vaccination, a $34 million program for medical supply distribution in Kenya, and a $90 million contract dealing with malaria prevention.
Critics against such expenditure of U.S. tax dollars argue that America cannot be the global caretaker when domestic issues like poverty and homelessness, the border and fentanyl crisis, and increasing violent crime persist.
In defense of the agency’s effectiveness, the aforementioned global conflict expert contested widespread accusations of wastage and corruption within the USAID. The expert expressed that the agency, despite certain failures, has often been ‘a leader in cost effectiveness’.
The expert confessed that while there were ineffective programs, faults are inevitable: ‘We make mistakes, everyone does’. These errors, however, are noticed and rectified. The expert stressed that the scale of corruption critics are alluding to significantly magnified the actual condition.
A policy forum chief, specializing in Middle Eastern affairs, testified that a large number of U.S.’s foreign aid initiatives contribute significantly to global stability and humanitarian crisis management while ensuring U.S.’s global influence. He advocated for a fix in foreign aid by saying, ‘Let’s fix foreign aid once and for all’.
The essence of the argument put forth by the policy forum chief was that concerning national security and the trust of American taxpayers, ‘we can’t afford to miss the mark.’ A call emphasizing the need for accuracy and efficiency to ensure maximum productivity and maintain the trust of the taxpayers.