Staff Reports
The recent critique of USAID by Michael Knowles highlights a growing debate over the priorities and effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid under the Biden administration. Knowles argues that USAID has drifted from its original mission of fostering development and promoting American interests abroad, instead funding projects that align with progressive ideologies but fail to benefit average Americans. Examples like funding a transgender opera in Colombia or male circumcision programs in Mozambique have become symbolic of what critics see as wasteful spending disconnected from U.S. taxpayers’ priorities.
This criticism is not without merit. USAID, established during the Cold War to counter Soviet influence through economic and social development, has long been a tool of American soft power. However, under recent administrations, its focus has increasingly shifted toward promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives abroad—programs that, while ideologically aligned with liberal values, often lack clear ties to advancing U.S. strategic interests. Critics like Knowles argue that such spending reflects the priorities of Washington elites rather than addressing pressing domestic concerns or fostering genuine development abroad.
The Biden administration’s approach to foreign aid has also tied funding to the promotion of LGBTQ rights and other progressive causes, a move that has sparked backlash both domestically and internationally. While supporters argue these initiatives promote human rights, detractors see them as cultural imperialism that alienates conservative-leaning nations and erodes trust in U.S. intentions. This ideological push has led some to question whether USAID’s resources are being used effectively or simply advancing a political agenda.
From a conservative perspective, the Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul USAID under Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) were steps in the right direction. These reforms aimed to cut wasteful spending and refocus aid on programs with measurable benefits to American interests, such as countering Chinese influence or supporting disaster relief in allied nations. The decision to slash funding for projects like the Turquoise Mountain Foundation—a program teaching Afghan artisans modern art techniques—reflects a broader desire to prioritize practical outcomes over ideological ventures.
However, the debate over USAID also underscores broader misconceptions about foreign aid. Many Americans believe it constitutes a significant portion of the federal budget when, in reality, it accounts for less than 1% of total spending. While conservatives rightly call for greater accountability and alignment with national interests, it’s important to recognize that foreign aid can serve as a cost-effective tool for advancing U.S. security and economic goals when properly managed.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding USAID reflects deeper tensions about America’s role in the world and how taxpayer dollars should be spent. As calls for an “America First” approach grow louder, policymakers must strike a balance between promoting U.S. values abroad and addressing domestic priorities. Reforming USAID to ensure transparency, efficiency, and alignment with American interests is essential—but so is maintaining its capacity to serve as a vital instrument of U.S. foreign policy in an increasingly competitive global landscape.
