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.
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.
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 agree with the need for efficiency in all governments. The US ranks #20 globally in terms of foreign aid foreign when viewed as a percent of GDP. At 0.22pct of GDP, one has to question whether the objective is to cut costs or make headlines that excite the less informed.
Viewing "renewable" or "green" projects as "virtue signaling" that have no "strategic vision" behind them is mischaracterizing the situation and relies on 20th century thinking. It is fact that China is dominating in the green energy space and the US is falling behind. It is fact that oil and gas sectors are investing more and more on renewable and/or green energy. This is the future whether you old timers like it or not, and thus must be encouraged by the US if it wants to be relevant in the future energy space, and if it wants to outcompete China for the economy of the future.
As for the "gender" based critique, your viewpoint is also so woefully misguided. It gives the "good ol' boys club" mentality. It is proven fact that diverse companies make better decisions, and the fact that women are 50% of the population (if not more), they are also 50% of the market and the entrepreneurs. It is smart policy to ensure that the artificially imposed barriers to 50% of the population's participation in the market are removed, and women are allowed to thrive.
Joe, most of the money is spent on so called capacity building, endless conferences, allowances, and meetings for NGOs. As an African, I’ve seen the limited impact of USA foreign aid on Africans. I even once whistleblowed a fund that was later shut down. Mad things.
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.
I think the actual root cause issues with USAID are a lot bigger & deeper than you realize.
The AID in USAID doesn't stand for "foreign aid." It stands for "Agency for International Development," which in practice is a euphemism for Empire Management Operations.
The reason it sucks so bad at efficacy wrt philanthropic aid is that philanthropic aid isn't the purpose of the organization.
I recommend Mike Benz as a good commentator on this subject.
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).
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.
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.
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 agree with the need for efficiency in all governments. The US ranks #20 globally in terms of foreign aid foreign when viewed as a percent of GDP. At 0.22pct of GDP, one has to question whether the objective is to cut costs or make headlines that excite the less informed.
1. Luxembourg: 1.05%
2. Norway: 1.02%
3. Sweden: 0.99%
4. Denmark: 0.71%
5. Germany: 0.8%
6. France: 0.7%
7. United Kingdom: 0.5%
8. Japan: 0.3%
9. Netherlands: 0.59%
10. Finland: 0.42%
11. Switzerland: 0.42%
12. Belgium: 0.42%
13. Ireland: 0.31%
14. Canada: 0.27%
15. Australia: 0.27%
16. Austria: 0.28%
17. Italy: 0.24%
18. New Zealand: 0.28%
19. Spain: 0.22%
20. United States: 0.22%
@JoeLonsdale please read your substack DMs
Viewing "renewable" or "green" projects as "virtue signaling" that have no "strategic vision" behind them is mischaracterizing the situation and relies on 20th century thinking. It is fact that China is dominating in the green energy space and the US is falling behind. It is fact that oil and gas sectors are investing more and more on renewable and/or green energy. This is the future whether you old timers like it or not, and thus must be encouraged by the US if it wants to be relevant in the future energy space, and if it wants to outcompete China for the economy of the future.
As for the "gender" based critique, your viewpoint is also so woefully misguided. It gives the "good ol' boys club" mentality. It is proven fact that diverse companies make better decisions, and the fact that women are 50% of the population (if not more), they are also 50% of the market and the entrepreneurs. It is smart policy to ensure that the artificially imposed barriers to 50% of the population's participation in the market are removed, and women are allowed to thrive.
Joe, most of the money is spent on so called capacity building, endless conferences, allowances, and meetings for NGOs. As an African, I’ve seen the limited impact of USA foreign aid on Africans. I even once whistleblowed a fund that was later shut down. Mad things.
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.
I think the actual root cause issues with USAID are a lot bigger & deeper than you realize.
The AID in USAID doesn't stand for "foreign aid." It stands for "Agency for International Development," which in practice is a euphemism for Empire Management Operations.
The reason it sucks so bad at efficacy wrt philanthropic aid is that philanthropic aid isn't the purpose of the organization.
I recommend Mike Benz as a good commentator on this subject.
Benz is a lunatic
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).