America’s foreign aid dilemma as USAID scrutinized

Since his return to the White House, US President Donald Trump has introduced sweeping changes to both domestic and foreign policy. His administration has moved swiftly, making key Cabinet appointments, outlining new strategic plans and, as is often the case in politics, facing its share of controversies.

It is customary for any new administration to reassess government programs, including how foreign aid is allocated, and to make adjustments in line with its values. However, one of the most controversial decisions thus far has been the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development.

USAID was founded in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy to promote economic growth, humanitarian relief and social development in countries in need. For decades, the organization has distributed aid across the globe, helped nations recover from crises, improved infrastructure and fostered democratic institutions. But this is not all.

The decision was formally announced by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. In her statement, she justified the move by highlighting what the administration views as wasteful spending and misplaced priorities within USAID. She pointed to numerous projects funded by the agency that, according to the administration, failed to serve American interests.

Among the most controversial expenditures was $1.5 million allocated to promote diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in Serbian workplaces. Leavitt said another $70,000 was used to produce a DEI-themed musical in Ireland, while $47,000 funded a transgender opera in Colombia and $32,000 was directed toward creating a transgender comic book in Peru.

These revelations sparked outrage among many American taxpayers, who questioned why their money was being spent on cultural and social projects in foreign countries rather than on domestic priorities. The administration has framed the dismantling of USAID as a necessary response to these concerns, arguing that American foreign aid should be more closely aligned with national interests.

This influential agency had gradually transformed into an unchecked bureaucracy, directing funds toward initiatives that, in some cases, clashed with the legal frameworks, religious principles and deeply rooted cultural traditions of recipient nations. USAID had strayed from its core mission of providing essential humanitarian aid and fostering sustainable development. It began prioritizing projects that did not necessarily align with the needs or values of the communities it aimed to assist.

No doubt, dismantling the agency will lead to a more efficient and strategic approach to foreign assistance — ensuring resources are allocated in ways that genuinely serve American interests and partner nations’ priorities. However, critics warn that dismantling USAID could have serious consequences, stressing that withdrawing from international aid programs could damage America’s reputation and weaken its diplomatic influence on the world stage.

Former State Department official Mike Benz warned that USAID has been operating beyond its intended role of issuing humanitarian aid. He claimed that the agency engaged in efforts that influenced foreign policy and may even have been involved in regulating online discourse, sparking concerns that political objectives were being advanced under the pretense of development assistance.

Several reports surfaced after the administration’s announcement, raising further concerns about USAID’s funding practices. One of the most significant findings came from the US-based Middle East Forum, which conducted a multiyear investigation into USAID and the State Department. The report claimed that $164 million in approved grants had been directed to radical organizations, with at least $122 million going to groups associated with US-designated terrorist entities and their supporters.

Beyond these direct grants, billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled into major American aid organizations that, according to the Middle East Forum, have repeatedly failed to screen their local partners for terrorist ties. Despite mounting evidence of negligence, these organizations continue to operate unchecked, seemingly enabled by the federal government’s inaction.

USAID had strayed from its core mission of providing essential humanitarian aid and fostering sustainable development

Dalia Al-Aqidi

The Middle East Forum report also points out that USAID’s Office of Inspector General has been one of the few internal watchdogs to raise concerns about questionable financial practices. Over the past year, it has repeatedly warned that USAID’s vetting systems are failing to identify recipients with extremist affiliations. It has also highlighted the growing problem of foreign organizations and UN agencies deliberately concealing information, further increasing the risk that funding could be exploited by “armed groups” for illicit purposes.

As scrutiny intensifies, these findings have reignited debate over USAID’s accountability and the extent to which its funding aligns with national security interests. With billions of taxpayer dollars at stake, questions remain about whether the agency’s current structure allows for proper oversight — or whether systemic changes are necessary to prevent the further misuse of funds.

So far, not all of the international programs funded by USAID have been fully disclosed, but what remains clear is the need to refocus on the organization’s original mission. With the agency’s closure, all aid programs have been abruptly halted, leaving many nations without the humanitarian assistance on which they rely. While concerns over financial mismanagement and misplaced priorities are valid, this decision also raises urgent questions about how the US will continue to support struggling communities worldwide.

Moving forward, the new administration must develop a more balanced approach that provides aid to impoverished nations while also addressing the concerns of American citizens. Taxpayers who bear the financial burden of these programs rightfully expect their government to prioritize their well-being, especially as they grapple with soaring prices and the rising cost of living.

Striking the right balance between international responsibility and domestic stability will be key in shaping the future of American foreign aid.

• Dalia Al-Aqidi is executive director at the American Center for Counter Extremism.