Is ignorance of USAID’s work bliss?
A global aid cutoff rests on some young Elon Musk aides’ willingness to overlook human suffering
Amidst the shutdown of US foreign aid—a step decried by virtually every international affairs expert in the free world but praised by about half of Americans—a poll conducted 15 years ago has been frequently cited. The survey found that the average American thought that the United States spent 25 percent of its federal budget on foreign aid and wanted that amount cut to 10 percent.
In actuality, only about 1 percent of the US budget goes to foreign aid. In other words, the overspending on foreign assistance that Americans complain about does not exist.
As Christian humanitarian organizations all over the world face potential catastrophe, they wonder why Marco Rubio, the Cuban American who serves as US secretary of state and was formerly a strong supporter of foreign aid, has changed his tune. Many acknowledge that accountability for US funds could be improved, but no one with any sensitivity to foreign relations thought a total cutoff with no warning made sense.
It appears that Rubio initially didn’t think so either. According to a February 24 Washington Post article, Rubio’s attempts to continue funding to critical aid programs were blocked by two young software experts working for Elon Musk, who manually vetoed the payments and prevented the money from flowing.
As a result, the article explained, “A $50 billion agency—funded by taxpayers, empowered by Congress and employing something like 11,000 people around the world—is now tightly controlled by a handful of 20-something software engineers who have never worked a day in government. They disregard promises from the American secretary of state while agonized policy experts stand by helplessly.”
On February 27, the administration announced the elimination of 92 percent of the US Agency for International Development’s foreign contracts.
I interviewed, on condition of anonymity, the government relations staff member at a well-known Christian humanitarian organization that received slightly under 10 percent of its funds from USAID.
My informant said he and others are trying desperately to explain how their work aligns with US policy interests. For example, he contended, combating human trafficking not only protects vulnerable people but also weakens the transnational criminal organizations that benefit from trafficking and forced labor. Strengthening other nations’ justice systems through US foreign assistance helps to reduce illegal migration. And the use of forced labor in global supply chains, which creates an unfair playing field for US businesses and workers, should be addressed.
Such pleas have fallen on deaf ears. In fact, my interviewee said, this episode is demonstrating that despite the heavy involvement of Christian humanitarian organizations as on-the-ground implementers of US foreign assistance all over the world, “there is not a super-strong American constituency in support of this assistance. This was one of the lowest-hanging fruit for the Trump administration’s effort to cut government spending and streamline what they see as a bloated federal government.”
One person who could perhaps influence the Trump administration is Franklin Graham, CEO of the Samaritan’s Purse relief organization and a Trump supporter. However, Graham expressed support for the aid pause in a February 6 Facebook post and a February 25 interview with Time magazine. When asked why a total pause in aid was necessary, Graham pivoted to talk about USAID employees pushing “personal agendas.”
Donald Trump and Elon Musk, based on their public behavior, would not seem to rank high on a list of people naturally inclined to do the ethically right thing. However, this unfolding global humanitarian challenge may encourage Christians and local communities around the world to give more generously rather than expecting the US government to do things that, perhaps, we could do better.