In Defense of USAID
I lost a career in development aid, but the US will lose much more.
In 2010, I moved to Ethiopia on a whim. There, I discovered USAID. Even as a journalist who had worked in three countries, I did not know about the Agency’s existence. So, it’s no surprise that 99% of Americans have no idea what USAID is or does.
Surveys show that Americans believe we send up to 25% of the federal budget to assist poor countries. And then when you ask them how much we should be sending, the majority say an average of 10%. In reality, our foreign assistance budget is half of one percent, and over the past few years, that means $25 — $40 billion. In proportion with our gross national income, US aid assistance (%0.22 in 2022) is lower than that of many developed countries, yet, as the richest country on earth, the US still provides, by far, the largest lump sum of financing and resources to the world’s low-income countries.
Under Trump, my 15-year career in the USAID sector came to an abrupt end. Now it’s time to take a look at USAID, how it has benefitted Americans, foreign policy and influence, and how for such a small sum of money, we support the world’s poorest countries without sacrificing American ideals of human rights, democracy, and human decency.
US Influence
By 2010, US-Ethiopian relations were stronger than they had ever been, in large part thanks to USAID efforts. For the last 100 years, Ethiopia has been ruled by one-party authoritarian regimes, and during the Cold War, the Derg regime played both sides, Russia and the US, to win support. In the nineties when the TPLF regime took over, the US became the stronger ally, and this power struggle was won in large part thanks to USAID.
One diplomat in Addis Ababa described USAID as the “Pentagon’s most effective tool”. For example, in 2011, the US military quietly set up a temporary base in southern Ethiopia in order to monitor Al Shabab, a Jihadist military and political organization based in neighboring Somalia. At that time, Al Shabab viewed the US as its enemy and regularly attacked Somali citizens and government while sowing chaos in both Ethiopia and Kenya.
In a region with significant humanitarian needs, a large budget attached to Ethiopia reflected a geopolitical strategy that could never be carried out by the Pentagon. Without soft power and influence, the US could not just show up and build a military base.
In the wake of USAID, countries like Ethiopia will have to adapt to new ways of funding public services and reaching their most vulnerable communities. In the short term, many will fail. Reducing dependence on USAID would be welcomed if we lived in a vacuum, but in this big, complicated world, there are unsavory actors already trying to fill the void, especially Russia and China.
The Russian model offers an army of mercenaries, e.g. Wagner Group, to assist governments with conflict resolution and counter insurgency. In return, Russia gains access to natural resources and does little to help the local population. China’s model, known as the Belt and Road Initiative, offers roads, ports, and infrastructure. In Africa the Chinese model is probably more popular than USAID, implementing larger infrastructure projects at a faster pace. But China is also saddling African countries with overwhelming debt. China pays no mind to human rights violations and cares nothing about democracy. Really, China just wants to get paid. The problem with viewing development as a business transaction is that China does not also invest in social programs like education, health, land rights, conservation or any other vital aspect of society.
I’ve worked on too many USAID projects, from fisheries to wildlife trafficking, where China plays a central role in causing global environmental issues.
Humanitarian Concerns
Back in 2010, I started as a writer on an urban agriculture program for women and families living with HIV. The funding for that program came through PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), a $15 billion fund conceptualized and signed into law by President Bush to combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, particularly in Africa, where millions were dying without access to treatment.
George W Bush–the man who led us into two unnecessary wars and gave a handful of American companies multimillion-dollar contracts to rebuild everything we blew up–showed compassion, and he also knew what I already stated above, soft power is power.
To pass the landmark PEPFAR bill, Bush built strong bipartisan support in Congress by framing it as a humanitarian necessity that aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests, leading to overwhelming approval in both the House and Senate. Since then, PEPFAR has saved an estimated 25 million lives in Africa.
When Trump suddenly canceled thousands of USAID contracts, people living with HIV all over Africa lost access to antiretroviral drugs. Trump unilaterally decided Bush’s billion dollar bills to fight disease and pandemic amounted to fraud and wasted taxpayer money. For each day of the loss of PEPFAR programming, an estimated 220,000 people cannot access life-saving treatment. UNAIDS estimates that if PEPFAR is eliminated, by 2029 the world would face a resurgence of the HIV pandemic, with an estimated 6.3 million AIDS-related deaths and 3.4 million AIDS orphans within four years. The same arguments can be made for malaria (also a Bush initiative), tuberculosis, ebola, and on and on.
Criticizing Aid
The White House will now tell you that all of these programs are wasteful and wrought with fraud. In my 15 year career, I admit that there are places where aid could be better spent, but as a price to protect US interests in so many countries, the price tag is cheap.
If there were an actor with a reason to reject USAID assistance, then it is the countries where we implement development programs. Their grievances may be related to economic development policies and programs that allow American companies to invade their markets and displace local producers. People often criticize aid in the agriculture space, where American food aid makes it increasingly difficult for local farmers to compete, or American firms like PepsiCo and Pioneer offer patented hybrid seeds that may provide larger yields up front but end up locking farmers into a commercial relationship that is unsustainable long term. These are all valid arguments and deserve analysis.
These are reasons why the Agency is in a process of constant autocorrection. Nearly every project designates experts in Collaboration, Learning, and Adaption, teams devoted to examining and improving how a project is implemented. On this journey of improvement, for the past ten years, USAID has prioritized putting more funds in the hands of local partners (Trump’s not going to like that one) to reduce waste and the Agency’s reliance on the handful of companies out of Washington. The logic is that stronger trustworthy foreign partners will increase a country’s resilience, and in the end, reduce the need USAID funds.
I can tell you that flawlessly spending that much money is not easy. Inevitable are the bad choices, bad investments, and ambitious plans that simply do not pan out. But USAID programs are routinely audited, and an inspector general (who was also fired by Trump) investigates fraud. It’s not perfect, but it works. USAID is a marathon and not a sprint, and the ongoing joke is that we are working ourselves out of a job. Over time, USAID will reduce support for certain countries, but from a foreign policy standpoint, the government must maintain USAID as long as it possibly can.
Looking in the mirror
Over and over, I’ve seen how USAID gives those who live in the shadows a chance to thrive. I’ve seen young women, whose families practiced genital mutilation, get an education. I’ve seen child brides escape their husbands and help prevent other children from early marriage. I’ve seen commercial sex workers band together to provide safe houses, knowledge, and support for one another. All this with money from the American people. Thanks to USAID, I’ve seen Indigenous communities in Colombia gain rights to land they’ve farmed for generations. I’ve seen people who were displaced by war receive a title to land they thought they would never see again. I’ve seen how governments have increased their capacity to stop wildlife trafficking, saving the planet’s most vulnerable species from extinction.
But none of this matters to Trump or the MAGA lot. When Trump issued a Stop Work Order to review all USAID projects, his anti-DEI crusade also reminded us all that this administration would not be supporting diversity or equality. What makes USAID special are the endeavors to work with the most vulnerable populations. In many African and Asian countries, LGBT populations face social stigma, abuse or worse, simply for being who they are. Women are seen as second-class citizens, and the youth are exploited. USAID supports these populations because nobody else will.
The destruction of USAID reminded me of a lesson I learned about the American mentality while living in Liberia in West Africa. In 2014, during the Ebola crisis, we faced the dilemma of whether or not to evacuate. Since my wife is Chilean, I contacted a Chilean newspaper, and our story landed on the front page, leading to overwhelming support and solidarity from Chileans.
At the same time, my brother had alerted a local TV channel in Utah that I was also caught in West Africa’s Ebola crisis. They did a piece and published it online, and the comment section was embarrassing. The American viewers were saying the opposite of what the Chileans were saying to my wife. They were telling me to stay in Africa, to keep me out of the country so I don’t infect them, that it was my decision to work in Africa and now I must live with that. The vitriol was scary. Their fear and paranoia were concerning.
“They better not let that guy back in the country.”
One culture was concerned about one of their citizens, rooting for her to make it back to Chile safely. The other culture was only concerned about whether I was bringing Ebola to their homes. They were concerned about themselves. And what is increasingly scary about our society is how bad people want to tell their neighbors that they are screwed. A perverted version of Schadenfreude.
Blowing up USAID is a cruel, misguided, and dangerous move. In his actions, Trump embodies this story, and all his supporters have gone to the comments section to tell the rest of the world that they are on their own.
