Rifts on USAID, foreign assistance, laid bare at congressional hearing

A congressional hearing dubbed “USAID Betrayal” turned into a heated debate on Thursday as lawmakers were sharply divided on the Trump administration’s foreign aid freeze, the demise of the agency, and past spending priorities. Rep. Brian Mast, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs chair, exemplified one end of the spectrum. In his opening remarks, he stated, “We are here today, very simply, because many of the people, many of the programs at USAID have literally betrayed America. The programs that USAID and the State Department have spent money on are indefensible. They hurt America’s standing around the globe and I think the fact is clear that America would have been better off if their money had been simply thrown into a fireplace. Instead, the Biden administration spent on imposing their far left-wing ideology onto other nations.” He also targeted NGOs, which he accused of “larceny” and of “swindling American taxpayers out of their money,” by alleging that they spend half of their grants on overhead rather than lifesaving programs. A significant number of Democrats viewed it as a betrayal, though of a different nature. By freezing aid and dismantling USAID, the Trump administration betrayed national security, allies, USAID employees, babies recently born with HIV in weeks who could have been disease-free, and decades of United States investments in disease prevention, education, and basic human needs for victims of war and natural disaster, said Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the committee. Other colleagues chimed in. “Betrayal is an accurate description of what Musk, Trump, and silent Republicans are doing to the American people by unilaterally dismantling our entire foreign aid apparatus,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Democrat from California. “You have endangered every American that relies on that system to keep them safe from global crises and relies on it to feed their own families.” She added a quip about a new Department of State contract with Tesla to provide armored trucks — “I guess people need cybertrucks more than they need malaria pills.” <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/s5Rsw0n30sk?si=bric5bTyP_EMJEmV" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe> The discussion was marked by more than a few raised voices, an early protest about the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, funding, and even a rare moment of levity when committee members joked about male anatomy while discussing USAID programs funding circumcisions. It was evident that there are also rifts within the Republican party, with varying opinions about the importance of U.S. foreign assistance and the risks associated with potentially losing USAID entirely. While some Republicans such as Rep. Mark Green, a Republican from Tennessee, tore into the agency for being “an unapologetic front for the far left in general,” he also lambasted USAID for managing not just “a handful foolish policies” but “a coordinated strategy of radical, idiotic and often anti-American policies.” Quite a few laid the blame for the agency’s downfall at the feet of the Biden administration. “USAID leadership failed in its most basic fiduciary responsibility, and that is to avoid the kinds of reputational risks that can imperil the agency’s legitimacy with Congress and the American people,” said Max Primorac, senior research fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation and one of the authors of Project 2025, adding that Trump’s decision to shutter the agency reflects a loss of trust and bipartisan support in Congress. “It exposes a bureaucracy that went off the ideological rails and no longer reflects the will of the values of the American people,” he said, adding that every project “is corrupted by this radical agenda.” Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas and the former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, reported that when he placed holds on Biden administration programs that he did not support, instead of collaborating with him they “decided to blow through holds, bucking longstanding tradition.” He highlighted successful programs, including Food for Peace, efforts to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative, work to counter terrorism, and PEPFAR. “Yet all this is called into question because of the irresponsibility of the Biden administration’s woke agenda,” he said. Some offered a more measured view. Andrew Natsios, a former USAID administrator during George W. Bush’s presidency, and one of the witnesses, defended the agency and its employees. He acknowledged disagreeing with some of the Biden administration programs but noted he would have managed a review of the agency differently, with bipartisan support, he said. “The career people followed what I wanted to do in the agency,” he said. “The notion that USAID is some kind of Marxist institution is absolutely ridiculous. I know the career officers, I worked with them.” He also rebutted claims of widespread corruption or fraud, detailing what he said were seven levels of USAID oversight. Agency staff often identify problems themselves, and if there is any waste, it’s typically due to the challenging environments the agency operates in, he said. Rep. Young Kim, a Republican from California, stated that “U.S. foreign assistance has long been a powerful soft power tool” and that some wasteful expenditures, like $2.5 million for electric vehicle charging in Vietnam, have undermined many “targeted, valuable foreign assistance programs that are essential to our national security.” She warned that China is poised to fill the vacuum left as the U.S. withdraws foreign aid, and noted it has already begun to do so. She queried former Rep. Ted Yoho, a Republican from Florida, about the requirements at the State Department to implement programs to counter Chinese influence if USAID and the State were merged. It is crucial to authorize and reinstate such programs quickly and bring back experts and implementers in the field, Yoho said. “I don’t know if State has the bandwidth or capability but people on the ground have the institutional knowledge, know-how to do that. They’re not Rs or Ds, they are mission-driven development experts in the field to move the objective forward,” he said. While acknowledging that “USAID has a big black eye,” he emphasized that people should look at its achievements and recognize that while some programs were flawed it doesn’t mean all were, he said. He suggested focusing on two categories of aid: Hard infrastructure projects such as roads, water, energy, and transportation to help build economies so they no longer need aid, and humanitarian programs, including food aid and health that can be delivered through a new USAID-type entity. “We must quickly bring back the authorization, funding, and the knowledgeable workforce to implement those programs that align with the administration's goal,” Yoho said. One recurring issue during the hearing was whether the administration’s waiver program, allowing some programs to continue during the aid pause and review, was effective. Mast pointed out repeatedly that the administration had approved waivers for PEPFAR, for Ebola response in Uganda, and more. He mentioned having a list of all of the approved waivers. However, many lawmakers and Natsios reported that while waivers may exist for some programs, the money isn’t flowing, so the programs cannot actually resume. “We are told that there’s waivers for all this. Well, PEPFAR has been allowed to work, but they have had no access to funds,” said Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California. When Yoho was asked for his recommendations to ensure an effective waiver process, he suggested the “quickest, most effective thing” is to identify programs that are aligned with the president’s priorities and then install people who know how to implement them effectively.