This week, USAID has been at the center of significant upheaval. President Donald Trump, in collaboration with Elon Musk, has taken steps towards significant restructuring. On February 3, 2025, USAID staff were instructed to stay out of its Washington headquarters. This was part of broader administrative changes where Secretary of State Marco Rubio was named acting administrator of USAID. Around 60 senior USAID staff were put on leave, accused of trying to circumvent Trump’s executive order to freeze foreign aid for 90 days.
The Department of Government Efficiency has taken significant action to reduce the influence of USAID. USAID employed around 10,000 people, many of whom were terminated, placed on leave, or incentivized to resign this week. This has left many in the Democratic party labeling the action as war. Let’s look at what USAID is and why DOGE has identified this specific institution for audit.
USAID is an independent agency, meaning it is not directly part of a cabinet-level department but operates under the executive branch of the U.S. government. However, it works closely with the U.S. Department of State, often reporting to the Secretary of State.
This isn’t the first time that foreign aid has been significantly reduced. It was deeply cut under the Clinton administration and increased under W. Bush. To be clear, USAID isn’t the only avenue that foreign aid is distributed, it is the most significant federal source however with a budget that grew from just over $10 billion in 2005 to more than $40 billion in 2024.
Critics of USAID suggest that the organization is the carrot branch of the CIA, with many foreign governments decrying the actions of the organization. Others suggest that it’s simply a waste of US taxpayer money.
Historically it’s a bit of both.
The relationship between USAID and the CIA is a tale as old as the Cold War itself, with whispers and documented instances painting a picture of covert activities under the guise of aid. The CIA’s involvement in regime change operations in countries like Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973) saw USAID providing a facade for CIA activities, including funding opposition movements or training police and military forces in counter-insurgency methods.
USAID was initially part of the U.S. strategy to combat communism, focusing on economic and democratic development to counter Soviet influence. This meant supporting “liberal” in the classical sense – promoting free markets, democracy, and individual freedoms against communist collectivism. The CIA’s use of USAID for covert operations during this time was often about containing communism, not promoting progressive social policies.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, the global ideological battle shifted. USAID’s mission evolved from countering communism to addressing broader global issues like poverty, health, and governance.
How did it begin?
The 1960s saw USAID’s inception amidst the Cold War, with U.S. military actions often serving as a backdrop for aid initiatives. In Vietnam, following U.S. military escalation, USAID focused on the “Cordon Sanitaire” efforts, aiming to pacify rural areas through development. Programs like the Rural Development Program sought to counter communist influence by improving living conditions, though the effectiveness was overshadowed by the ongoing war. Elsewhere, USAID contributed to the Green Revolution in India, supporting agricultural advancements that were partly a strategic move against Soviet influence in the region.
After the Vietnam War, USAID shifted towards a “basic human needs” approach in response to global economic crises and political upheavals. In Southeast Asia, post-war recovery efforts in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia involved USAID in rebuilding infrastructure, health, and education systems. In Africa, amid Cold War proxy conflicts, like in Angola, USAID provided humanitarian assistance, focusing on refugees and basic services, while U.S. military support for various factions indirectly led to these humanitarian crises.
The Reagan Doctrine led to increased military involvement in places like Central America, particularly in Nicaragua where U.S. support for the Contras necessitated USAID’s humanitarian response for the displaced populations. In El Salvador, USAID funded programs for democracy and economic reform, paralleling U.S. military aid to the government fighting a civil war. Globally, USAID’s emphasis on economic stability and market principles was a counter to Soviet influence, with aid often following military or political upheaval.
The fall of the Berlin Wall marked a new era for USAID, focusing on post-Soviet states. In Eastern Europe, USAID supported the transition to market economies and democracy, following NATO’s involvement in conflicts like those in the Balkans. In Somalia, after U.S. military intervention (Operation Restore Hope), USAID led efforts in famine relief and rebuilding, though the volatile security situation limited success. The decade also saw USAID’s involvement in peace processes, like in Mozambique, where aid followed UN peacekeeping missions.
Post-9/11, USAID’s role became intertwined with U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, after the U.S. invasion to oust the Taliban, USAID’s reconstruction efforts included health, education, and infrastructure, though corruption and ongoing conflict stymied progress. In Iraq, after the 2003 invasion, USAID attempted to rebuild a nation, focusing on governance, water supply, and electricity, amidst an insurgency and sectarian violence. These initiatives were criticized for lacking in cultural understanding and long-term commitment.
Following the Arab Spring, U.S. military support varied but was significant in places like Libya. USAID’s responses included democracy and governance programs, which were challenged by the region’s instability. In Syria, USAID provided massive humanitarian aid in response to the civil war, where U.S. military involvement was more covert and through support for opposition groups. Globally, USAID continued to address climate change, health crises like Ebola, and supported peace processes in Colombia following years of conflict.
After the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021, USAID shifted from large-scale development to emergency humanitarian aid. Despite the Taliban’s restrictive policies, particularly on women’s rights, USAID has been supporting emergency food aid, health services, and clandestine education for girls, navigating around the Taliban’s bans to provide aid through local NGOs and international partners. However, the effectiveness has been curtailed by the volatile political situation and funding issues.
With Russia’s invasion in 2022, USAID ramped up support for Ukraine, focusing on humanitarian aid, including food, shelter, and medical supplies, alongside efforts to bolster democratic institutions and economic resilience. USAID has worked on energy sector support and governance programs to help sustain Ukraine through the conflict, but the ongoing war limits the scope and impact of these efforts.
USAID has been pivotal in the global response to health crises like the ongoing battle against COVID-19, supporting vaccine distribution, health system strengthening, and preparing for future pandemics. Efforts in Africa have included significant contributions to fight HIV/AIDS through PEPFAR, showcasing a blend of health and development aid.
The list goes on, the projects funded by USAID are varied in scope and extent, and it’s truly a global goliath of a machine. Yet, for every beneficial initiative, there exists a counterbalance of criticisms regarding its alleged role as an informal extension of the intelligence community.
USAID’s economic assistance programs in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, aimed at transitioning from communist to market economies, sometimes led to economic instability or were perceived as favoring certain oligarchs or Western businesses, potentially fostering resentment or dependency. USAID’s involvement in the chaotic privatization of the 1990s indirectly contributed to the rise of oligarchs, some of whom later aligned with Putin, supporting his power base. USAID’s support for NGOs, media, and civil society was often criticized by the Russian government as meddling, leading to the expulsion of USAID from Russia in 2012. Funding for NGOs and civil society during the Orange Revolution (2004) and Euromaidan (2014) was seen by some as promoting instability, which Russia could exploit to justify its actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Efforts to promote civil society and democracy here have sometimes led to political instability, which both Russia and China have used to strengthen their influence as stabilizing forces.
So why is the Democratic Party decrying the removal of staff? Some claim it’s because members are direct recipients of the funding.
Data from OpenSecrets suggests that 97% of political contributions from USAID employees during the 2024 election cycle went to Democrats with $241,079 going directly to Kamala Harris, while only $999 went to Donald Trump, suggesting that the staff of the agency are heavily skewed towards one political party.
USAID also channels a significant portion of its budget through NGOs. According to the Congressional Research Service data from 2023, NGOs implement the majority (52%) of USAID programs. This means a substantial amount of USAID’s $43.4 billion budget for that year was directed towards NGOs. USAID funding goes to NGOs like the Consortium for Elections & Political Process Strengthening, which are accused of being staffed with “high-profile establishment politicians from both parties,” but with a lean towards Democrats according to critics.
The potential dissolution of USAID prompts a broader conversation about America’s role in global aid. The heart to help our fellow humans is undeniable, yet with a national debt surpassing $36 trillion, there’s a need to reassess how the US distributes resources. This moment serves as a reflection on the necessity of addressing national debt, ensuring stable country from which to offer future assistance.
Regardless, the government’s actions do not eliminate the capacity for individuals to support these causes through direct contributions. Instead, it forces a reevaluation of aid priorities, aiming to ensure that funds are directed towards their intended purposes rather than misappropriated through negligence or fraud.
