As Trump upends USAID, what can be done?

In the midst of Devex’s Pro Briefing today on the latest developments in U.S. President Donald Trump’s unprecedented overhaul of foreign aid, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters traveling with him in Panama that he was acting director of the U.S. Agency for International Development. It was yet another sign of the breakneck changes seizing America’s once-premier aid agency. Taken together, they point to a wholesale dismantling of USAID, as opposed to a good-faith review of aid programs, said Beth Tritter, a partner in the government affairs division at FGS Global. “I think that the objective here is obviously to just convulsively upend the entire system. It's not reform. This is sort of wiping the slate clean and starting [from scratch]. That has to be it, because otherwise, this is not the approach you take,” Tritter, one of the panelists at the Pro event, said. She added that the Trump administration “is extraordinarily well aware of all of the flexibilities that they have, and is willing to dig into every single one of them, all at once.” She noted that while some of Trump’s USAID directives could be subject to legal injunctions and legal challenges, “there are also a lot that probably wouldn't be because there are loopholes and flexibilities and waivers and presidential powers and authorities that can be exploited.” And it’s abundantly clear that Trump will use that power to pursue a more transactional foreign policy. “Presidents to date have had values-based foreign policy, whether they stuck to it or not. President Trump had a transactional-based foreign policy, and so foreign assistance will be a tool under that transactional approach, which is more effective for allocating rewards and punishments,” said Chris Milligan, a former counselor to USAID. “Some of the implications are that development won't be valid as an expertise. Things like monitoring and evaluation, strategic planning, and learning will not be the priorities they had been in the past. A short-term focus will be the priority … so it's going to be difficult affecting more of that long-term change,” he added, noting that there will be greater funding uncertainty “because political events will determine priorities rather than development goals.” So what’s next? Panelists pointed to Congress as the next logical ally for aid advocates, especially because many of the U.S. job losses are affecting their own districts, adding pressure for lawmakers to step up for their constituents. “At a big-picture level, these actions of rupturing our relationships with countries around the world, harming millions of people by the disruption, curtailment of services, the unemployment that's going to be created in partner countries where you have dozens or hundreds of organizations that are employing thousands of people who are suddenly going to be out of a job. Those are all going to have repercussions,” Patrick Fine of the Brookings Institution said. “And so at what point does Congress, not just the Democratic members, but the Republican members, recognize this is not in the interests of the United States. This is harming our foreign policy. When will Secretary Rubio see that this weakens his position rather than strengthening it? And then you start to get some kind of action from Congress that is bipartisan, so that's a big question mark for me,” he said. Another question Fine has: At what point will members of the sector, including implementing partners, seek relief from the courts? It’s a difficult question because many organizations are scared to be the first ones to stick their neck out, fearful of alienating the Trump administration and ruining any chances of obtaining a waiver to the foreign aid freeze. Plus, there are still so many questions from a legal perspective, said Sam Jack of Impresa Legal Group, who previously served as an attorney with USAID’s Office of the General Counsel. But Jack said he could envision several forms of lawsuits moving forward. “I think the most concrete is for pre-stop-work order costs,” he said, referring to costs incurred for work already done that contractually must be reimbursed. What about costs incurred during the stop-work order, like overhead costs to keep the lights on? “That may be premature to go down the legal path, since we're only a week or two in, but not necessarily. And I think there could be an argument for pursuing those costs aggressively, even now,” Jack said. Fine pointed out that “waivers don't have much meaning if the payment system is disabled, and apparently the payment system is disabled. Plus the waivers are vague, so you don't really know exactly what specific expenses are allowable and which are not, and there's nobody who you can ask.” Regardless, Fine and other panelists advised that organizations should still apply for a waiver and keep detailed records of all exchanges with USAID. “Talk like you actually think there might be a waiver. Because if you're thinking about it from the standpoint of a member of Congress .. who you're asking to advocate with the administration for your priority, they need something to dig into,” Tritter said. Fine added that perhaps with Rubio taking the reins of USAID, those waivers might be more forthcoming. “Since the latest announcement with the secretary of state being actually head of USAID, I would suspect that we will start seeing more assistance flowing. And this is just me with conjecture. I think … the suspension of foreign assistance was an action-forcing event that led to where we are today,” he said. But Fine said people still must fight, as opposed to “putting their heads down” as a strategy. “My view is that it is so clear at this point that the intention of the administration is to collapse the existing order. … This caution that organizations are feeling of, ‘Well, we don't want to be out front because then we'll become persona non grata,’ is misplaced at this point,” he said. “If somebody's got a knife to your throat, you've got to start fighting back, or you just give up.” Christine Sow, president and CEO of Humentum, agreed, pointing out that USAID could be a test case for how the administration dismantles other U.S. government agencies. “The Trump administration and their allies have been talking about a shock and awe approach, and I think we're very much in the middle of that right now. I'd say if there's an upside to it, it's that it's so dramatic that it gets people riled up, as opposed to an approach where it's the frog in the boiling pot of water who doesn't notice that things are changing until it's too late,” Sow said. “I just hope that we are not so afraid to stick our heads above the parapet that nobody does and that we just allow this to happen. Because this is, to use another military analogy, the shot across the bow. This is one industry that's being attacked now, but we also know this is happening in the FBI. We know that this is happening in the Department of Justice, so they're only just getting started, and if we let this go, it means that they get tacit permission to do this elsewhere,” she warned. Sow also said this is especially painful for USAID because its employees are “mission-driven.” “I think that is what makes this different from perhaps some other industries, where people do it as a job because it puts food on the table. We do it because we know of the difference that it makes in people's lives around the world, and we really believe in that. And that is the hard thing.”