These two idiots don't know what they're talking about. The US aid budget has NOT "exploded." It's 1% of the federal budget, .25% of GDP, and one-tenth the budget of the Pentagon. It's been part of our foreign policy toolbox for decades and a crucial way for the US to exert soft power. Abandoning foreign assistance will make us weaker, poorer and less safe. Who does Trump think will fill the void that the US will leave? It will obviously be China. Let's also not forget the massive unemployment this would cause in the US. The effect will be one that even the billionaires and corporations that got Trump elected will feel. So short sighted...
There is nothing idiotic about this blog. It’s a sharp eyed analysis of an ongoing total waste of tax payer money for little or no gain. I do not have a say in how the US spends its money as I’m British but can vouch that when our equivalent of USAID (DfiD) was folded into the FCO it began, at last, to tackle virtue signalling programmes that had neither worthy outputs or outcomes that furthered UK interests. My company does a lot of work in sub Saharan-Africa which contains about 30% of the critical minerals we will need going forward. Be in no doubt the extent to which China dominates minerals, supply chains, communications, infrastructure and much else in Africa. Hardly a dollar has been spent on aid. Tackling that incumbency during Trumps term is vital. There are also huge opportunities once the US organizes its world leading technology, extractive industries and financial institutions. That will begin to see poverty being tackled meaningfully and critically begin to address and counter Chinas long held incumbency in Africa.
Do better Joe. Selective anecdotes do not substitute for real analysis nor reflect the reality of USAID’s positive impact on quality of life and extending US influence and expand access to global markets. USAID has been audited multiple times and has developed effective monitoring and evaluation that might inform your analysis. It is not an either/or proposition with respect to USAID and DFC, but rather both/and. The thousands of US citizens summarily dismissed without recourse for nothing more than serving their country, often times for decades, should shock every American. Federal employees represent a cross section of the US population in Washington DC and every state in the union. We should
honor and respect their service and not punish them for implementing previous administration policy objectives. Accountability, yes. But these draconian measures unnecessarily punish hard-working Americans as they enrich others.
I have lived long-term in a 3rd world African country as a missionary serving children at risk. Our organization does not receive any government aid. It is funded by private donations. I agree that a lot of aid is misused by foreign governments and sustainable SBA-like programs are a great idea. However, children are a class of people who cannot help themselves, particularly if they have no parents or poor parents. USAID funding provides life-saving medical care through large scale projects that small organizations like ours could not begin to tackle. We are in a population that is sustained primarily by subsistence farming. My friend is an American doctor at a hospital supported through USAID related programs in the same developing 3rd world nation. I know first hand the lives that are saved. When we rescued a trafficked child that was almost dead from horrific abuse, the USAID funded medical care provided life-saving care for this 5 year old and a child psychologist to help her recover from trauma. While I am pro-Trump, I do hope there is some thought about the lives of children in developing nations that will be lost if life-saving, large-scale medical programs are abruptly cut. Some of our children have HIV. Medical programs funded by USAID provide testing for HIV and ARV drugs that have ultimately saved lives and helped stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. The HIV/AIDS we have in the US today started in Africa. It is easy for disease to spread in populations with no access to medical care. USAID related medical programs were instrumental in ending the AIDS pandemic that wiped out a significant percentage of parents, leaving an orphan crisis. Some of the children that survived it are the parents we are dealing with today in our mission. They had no opportunity for education and struggle
to provide for their families. Unless there is positive intervention offering education that leads to provision, family/belonging, and power, radical groups draw them. Radical groups that offer provision and a warped sense of family/belonging and power provide a solution to those in abject poverty with no hope.
These cuts have long-term consequences and leave a void in impoverished cultures for radicals to fill. I'm all for cutting the fat (especially funds fueling radicals). Let's just view through a long-term lens and make sure it is fat. Right now all HIV counseling services have been halted in our community and employees are currently searching for other employment. I was contacted by one looking for employment with us. These services are significant in stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS.
As someone who has worked at the World Bank and in the private sector in over 45+ developing countries, I've witnessed firsthand what drives successful development.
Economic growth flourishes when the enabling conditions are in place: good governance, sound policies, and private sector-led approaches to better infrastructure, healthcare, and education. However, when development is attempted by pumping aid without market-driven incentives it usually fails.
This is why it is time to reassess how U.S. foreign aid is structured—not to withdraw from global engagement -- but to ensure it delivers measurable results, aligns with strategic interests, and fosters long-term economic self-sufficiency rather than dependency.
The key questions that this blog raises and which we ought to ask are: Are our taxpayer dollars being used efficiently? Are we achieving sustainable impact? Are we leveraging private sector investment to drive growth? These apply to all agencies and organizations where US taxpayer money is used.
Many of the concerns raised in this blog resonate. Over time, foreign aid has drifted into areas with minimal oversight, often favoring short-term political priorities or ideology-driven projects over sustainable, market-based solutions. The success stories of U.S. foreign aid share a common thread: clear objectives, rigorous accountability, and a focus on economic transformation rather than perpetual dependence.
The creation of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) was a positive step in this direction. Expanding its role—while ensuring it remains mission-focused—could better align U.S. development efforts with long-term strategic and economic interests.
At the same time, calls for reform should not be used to disengage. Economic statecraft and aid remain a potent tool for influence being used by other countries. This influence though is maximized by investing in projects that build resilient economies, expand trade opportunities, and create partners rather than permanent recipients of aid.
Within the foreign assistance framework, there needs to be a place for targeted humanitarian relief and support for fragile states, making certain that it does not fall into the hands of bad actors or corrupt officials. However, the broader architecture of U.S. development policy should shift toward leveraging private capital, ensuring transparency, and driving measurable returns on investment.
Greater accountability, measurable results, and market-based approaches while fostering genuine economic development are also more respectful of the recipient nations' dignity and agency.
It's time to honestly reassess what works in development, challenge outdated assumptions, and embrace evidence-based approaches that deliver mutual benefits.
Huge common sense and win-win economic solution when that is where we need to focus. Maybe some of it makes sense, though not to me, there is only so much pie and it needs to be shared judicially. What a great opportunity to expand markets and opportunities for best in class companies along side developing country entrepreneurs. Love the Greenland suggestion, much better than taking it over.
Brilliant and much needed. Enough of the Federal government throwing around taxpayer money with no regard to the return. It's not welfare, it's investment, and should be treated as such. Thank goodness Biden (the conduit for progressive left policies) is soon gone.
I'd support shifting all of our development aid to the DFC, but it should still be spent on development! Investing in Greenland is great, but I don't want money that formerly belonged to USAID to be spent in Greenland: it should be spent in Africa.
In addition, I think we should still be giving humanitarian aid. This can be small: $10, $20 billion per year. In Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, and a few other places, food and medication is badly needed. Even if you don't care about these people dying (and you should), causing a crisis or recession in government-controlled areas of Somalia is going to let al-Shabaab take over.
Spot on, brothers. Spot on. There are seven former directors on the board for USAID and they are only developing 'assets' for their policy uses against the interests of Americans.
See @MikeBenzCyber for a master class in the evils these people advance.
Well said. Unfortunately, I am still enough of a cynic to believe that the interests of the few will usually supersede those of the many. Crony capitalism is real, regardless of the party in power. Here's hoping that the simple mission statement of promoting American interests is adhered to. As Regan said...Trust but verify.
These agencies and those responsible for their budgets would do well to keep in mind Hamilton's reflection in a slightly different context (the Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794) that "under every form of government, Rulers are only Trustees for the happiness and interest of their nation, and cannot, consistently with their trust, follow the suggestions of kindness or humanity towards others, to the prejudice of their constituent."
The outgoing administration just learned the hard way (if they learned at all).
Sure hope they listen to you! There needs to be all the change you mention and policies to lock it in for the long term. One possible solution is to force easily accessible publication of where the funds are going, what happened to them, and what the quantifiable return on investment is.
Well reasoned! And the examples are important to challenge the present narrative. We are not saying that we should stop foreign aid, instead we want to refocus accountability and oversight - which will naturally repurpose aid to more viable projects.
Having done work for both USAID and the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), I am now trying to think about things within our present reality. We need to decide what role the US government will play in international development. Should it give money away abroad to alleviate misery? Win the hearts and minds of people? Address problems abroad before they reach our country? Gain influence with other governments? None of the above or multiple choices are possible.
Separately, the US government can pursue international development through investment, but there are a lot of strategic or impactful projects that need some other form of financial assistance in order to facilitate that. Is it worthwhile to give some money away to bring in financial or non-financial resources from others? Are we willing to accept a below market rate of return (the difference being another form of a give-away)? Investment is not the hard power of military might but can be more than soft power – e.g., China’s controversial Belt and Road Initiative.
America, what do we care about? The choices are not mutually exclusive. Development finance cannot replace USAID. That doesn’t make it a bad thing. In fact, its expansion is now more important than ever. In addition to Increasing DFC’s lending limits, I support its use of grant money. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I'm an American who has been doing business in sub‑Saharan Africa for over 10 years, and I wanted to share a few thoughts:
1)The U.S. must maintain a strong stance on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Rather than a barrier, it allows me to sidestep corrupt officials without personal offense. Eliminating it would only encourage grift. We should strive to be exceptional, not lower the bar.
2)My company was about to participate in a USAID‑funded program in Malawi called Growth Poles, aimed at stimulating business investment for development. It's the first version of USAID that has been useful to me, but it probably belongs within DFC. I'd love to help you do more of that.
3)The idea of a pro‑U.S. sovereign wealth fund is worth pursuing. The current mix of State‑USAID-NGO-Consultant‑DFC is too opaque and wasteful. Nobody is motivated to be capital efficient and it's obvious. While Toyota Land Cruisers are great, U.S. taxpayers should underwrite Ford Rangers.
The DFC should promote American business, national interests, and the rule of law abroad, while USAID focuses on delivering critical global aid simply because it's the right thing to do.
These two idiots don't know what they're talking about. The US aid budget has NOT "exploded." It's 1% of the federal budget, .25% of GDP, and one-tenth the budget of the Pentagon. It's been part of our foreign policy toolbox for decades and a crucial way for the US to exert soft power. Abandoning foreign assistance will make us weaker, poorer and less safe. Who does Trump think will fill the void that the US will leave? It will obviously be China. Let's also not forget the massive unemployment this would cause in the US. The effect will be one that even the billionaires and corporations that got Trump elected will feel. So short sighted...
There is nothing idiotic about this blog. It’s a sharp eyed analysis of an ongoing total waste of tax payer money for little or no gain. I do not have a say in how the US spends its money as I’m British but can vouch that when our equivalent of USAID (DfiD) was folded into the FCO it began, at last, to tackle virtue signalling programmes that had neither worthy outputs or outcomes that furthered UK interests. My company does a lot of work in sub Saharan-Africa which contains about 30% of the critical minerals we will need going forward. Be in no doubt the extent to which China dominates minerals, supply chains, communications, infrastructure and much else in Africa. Hardly a dollar has been spent on aid. Tackling that incumbency during Trumps term is vital. There are also huge opportunities once the US organizes its world leading technology, extractive industries and financial institutions. That will begin to see poverty being tackled meaningfully and critically begin to address and counter Chinas long held incumbency in Africa.
Do better Joe. Selective anecdotes do not substitute for real analysis nor reflect the reality of USAID’s positive impact on quality of life and extending US influence and expand access to global markets. USAID has been audited multiple times and has developed effective monitoring and evaluation that might inform your analysis. It is not an either/or proposition with respect to USAID and DFC, but rather both/and. The thousands of US citizens summarily dismissed without recourse for nothing more than serving their country, often times for decades, should shock every American. Federal employees represent a cross section of the US population in Washington DC and every state in the union. We should
honor and respect their service and not punish them for implementing previous administration policy objectives. Accountability, yes. But these draconian measures unnecessarily punish hard-working Americans as they enrich others.
I have lived long-term in a 3rd world African country as a missionary serving children at risk. Our organization does not receive any government aid. It is funded by private donations. I agree that a lot of aid is misused by foreign governments and sustainable SBA-like programs are a great idea. However, children are a class of people who cannot help themselves, particularly if they have no parents or poor parents. USAID funding provides life-saving medical care through large scale projects that small organizations like ours could not begin to tackle. We are in a population that is sustained primarily by subsistence farming. My friend is an American doctor at a hospital supported through USAID related programs in the same developing 3rd world nation. I know first hand the lives that are saved. When we rescued a trafficked child that was almost dead from horrific abuse, the USAID funded medical care provided life-saving care for this 5 year old and a child psychologist to help her recover from trauma. While I am pro-Trump, I do hope there is some thought about the lives of children in developing nations that will be lost if life-saving, large-scale medical programs are abruptly cut. Some of our children have HIV. Medical programs funded by USAID provide testing for HIV and ARV drugs that have ultimately saved lives and helped stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. The HIV/AIDS we have in the US today started in Africa. It is easy for disease to spread in populations with no access to medical care. USAID related medical programs were instrumental in ending the AIDS pandemic that wiped out a significant percentage of parents, leaving an orphan crisis. Some of the children that survived it are the parents we are dealing with today in our mission. They had no opportunity for education and struggle
to provide for their families. Unless there is positive intervention offering education that leads to provision, family/belonging, and power, radical groups draw them. Radical groups that offer provision and a warped sense of family/belonging and power provide a solution to those in abject poverty with no hope.
These cuts have long-term consequences and leave a void in impoverished cultures for radicals to fill. I'm all for cutting the fat (especially funds fueling radicals). Let's just view through a long-term lens and make sure it is fat. Right now all HIV counseling services have been halted in our community and employees are currently searching for other employment. I was contacted by one looking for employment with us. These services are significant in stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS.
It’s not that African govts don’t have the money to pay for these often very cost effective interventions. It’s that the money goes to corruption.
The US giving money to coke addicts is that they spend more money on coke rather than fixing their own problems.
Nice How To. The foreign policy blob is wasting taxpayer funds and hurting those who it claims to help. NGO delenda est.
As someone who has worked at the World Bank and in the private sector in over 45+ developing countries, I've witnessed firsthand what drives successful development.
Economic growth flourishes when the enabling conditions are in place: good governance, sound policies, and private sector-led approaches to better infrastructure, healthcare, and education. However, when development is attempted by pumping aid without market-driven incentives it usually fails.
This is why it is time to reassess how U.S. foreign aid is structured—not to withdraw from global engagement -- but to ensure it delivers measurable results, aligns with strategic interests, and fosters long-term economic self-sufficiency rather than dependency.
The key questions that this blog raises and which we ought to ask are: Are our taxpayer dollars being used efficiently? Are we achieving sustainable impact? Are we leveraging private sector investment to drive growth? These apply to all agencies and organizations where US taxpayer money is used.
Many of the concerns raised in this blog resonate. Over time, foreign aid has drifted into areas with minimal oversight, often favoring short-term political priorities or ideology-driven projects over sustainable, market-based solutions. The success stories of U.S. foreign aid share a common thread: clear objectives, rigorous accountability, and a focus on economic transformation rather than perpetual dependence.
The creation of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) was a positive step in this direction. Expanding its role—while ensuring it remains mission-focused—could better align U.S. development efforts with long-term strategic and economic interests.
At the same time, calls for reform should not be used to disengage. Economic statecraft and aid remain a potent tool for influence being used by other countries. This influence though is maximized by investing in projects that build resilient economies, expand trade opportunities, and create partners rather than permanent recipients of aid.
Within the foreign assistance framework, there needs to be a place for targeted humanitarian relief and support for fragile states, making certain that it does not fall into the hands of bad actors or corrupt officials. However, the broader architecture of U.S. development policy should shift toward leveraging private capital, ensuring transparency, and driving measurable returns on investment.
Greater accountability, measurable results, and market-based approaches while fostering genuine economic development are also more respectful of the recipient nations' dignity and agency.
It's time to honestly reassess what works in development, challenge outdated assumptions, and embrace evidence-based approaches that deliver mutual benefits.
Huge common sense and win-win economic solution when that is where we need to focus. Maybe some of it makes sense, though not to me, there is only so much pie and it needs to be shared judicially. What a great opportunity to expand markets and opportunities for best in class companies along side developing country entrepreneurs. Love the Greenland suggestion, much better than taking it over.
Brilliant and much needed. Enough of the Federal government throwing around taxpayer money with no regard to the return. It's not welfare, it's investment, and should be treated as such. Thank goodness Biden (the conduit for progressive left policies) is soon gone.
Great post, and good luck as head of the DFC.
I'd support shifting all of our development aid to the DFC, but it should still be spent on development! Investing in Greenland is great, but I don't want money that formerly belonged to USAID to be spent in Greenland: it should be spent in Africa.
In addition, I think we should still be giving humanitarian aid. This can be small: $10, $20 billion per year. In Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, and a few other places, food and medication is badly needed. Even if you don't care about these people dying (and you should), causing a crisis or recession in government-controlled areas of Somalia is going to let al-Shabaab take over.
Spot on, brothers. Spot on. There are seven former directors on the board for USAID and they are only developing 'assets' for their policy uses against the interests of Americans.
See @MikeBenzCyber for a master class in the evils these people advance.
Well said. Unfortunately, I am still enough of a cynic to believe that the interests of the few will usually supersede those of the many. Crony capitalism is real, regardless of the party in power. Here's hoping that the simple mission statement of promoting American interests is adhered to. As Regan said...Trust but verify.
Trust but verify is not destroy and abandon
These agencies and those responsible for their budgets would do well to keep in mind Hamilton's reflection in a slightly different context (the Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794) that "under every form of government, Rulers are only Trustees for the happiness and interest of their nation, and cannot, consistently with their trust, follow the suggestions of kindness or humanity towards others, to the prejudice of their constituent."
The outgoing administration just learned the hard way (if they learned at all).
Sure hope they listen to you! There needs to be all the change you mention and policies to lock it in for the long term. One possible solution is to force easily accessible publication of where the funds are going, what happened to them, and what the quantifiable return on investment is.
Well reasoned! And the examples are important to challenge the present narrative. We are not saying that we should stop foreign aid, instead we want to refocus accountability and oversight - which will naturally repurpose aid to more viable projects.
This article has selected anecdotes but missing comprehensive data on US foreign aid.
Foreign aid spending of $71.9 billion in fiscal 2023 is only 1.2% of total federal outlays, which were more than $6.1 trillion.
For context, the federal budget deficit – bridged by borrowing – was $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2023.
So, even cutting USAID's budget to zero will hardy make the government more "efficient"!
Also worth taking a look at the data for Military "Assistance", for context.
Foreign Military Sales program was $117.9 billion and Direct Commercial Sales totaled $200.8 billion in 2024.
So, the profits from those sales more than likely covered the entire foreign "aid" budget!
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06/what-the-data-says-about-us-foreign-aid/
Having done work for both USAID and the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), I am now trying to think about things within our present reality. We need to decide what role the US government will play in international development. Should it give money away abroad to alleviate misery? Win the hearts and minds of people? Address problems abroad before they reach our country? Gain influence with other governments? None of the above or multiple choices are possible.
Separately, the US government can pursue international development through investment, but there are a lot of strategic or impactful projects that need some other form of financial assistance in order to facilitate that. Is it worthwhile to give some money away to bring in financial or non-financial resources from others? Are we willing to accept a below market rate of return (the difference being another form of a give-away)? Investment is not the hard power of military might but can be more than soft power – e.g., China’s controversial Belt and Road Initiative.
America, what do we care about? The choices are not mutually exclusive. Development finance cannot replace USAID. That doesn’t make it a bad thing. In fact, its expansion is now more important than ever. In addition to Increasing DFC’s lending limits, I support its use of grant money. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Hi Joe and Ben,
I'm an American who has been doing business in sub‑Saharan Africa for over 10 years, and I wanted to share a few thoughts:
1)The U.S. must maintain a strong stance on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Rather than a barrier, it allows me to sidestep corrupt officials without personal offense. Eliminating it would only encourage grift. We should strive to be exceptional, not lower the bar.
2)My company was about to participate in a USAID‑funded program in Malawi called Growth Poles, aimed at stimulating business investment for development. It's the first version of USAID that has been useful to me, but it probably belongs within DFC. I'd love to help you do more of that.
3)The idea of a pro‑U.S. sovereign wealth fund is worth pursuing. The current mix of State‑USAID-NGO-Consultant‑DFC is too opaque and wasteful. Nobody is motivated to be capital efficient and it's obvious. While Toyota Land Cruisers are great, U.S. taxpayers should underwrite Ford Rangers.
The DFC should promote American business, national interests, and the rule of law abroad, while USAID focuses on delivering critical global aid simply because it's the right thing to do.
Best regards, Finley Merrill