Obituary. USAID (1961-2025). An Introspection and Prediction

I mourn USAID the way we knew it. The agency that I worked for a decade has essentially disappeared, with only a fraction of it reincarnated and subsumed into the State Department. I empathize with all my former USAID colleagues, contractors, grantees, sub-grantees, recipients, project beneficiaries, vendors, and suppliers in the United States and around the world. All of you are economically and emotionally harmed. The battle will ensue in the Courts and in the end, Congress will have no choice but to act (see my January 4 post explaining this locus of power). The next incarnation of US Foreign Assistance will be skinny, laser-focused, more intertwined with U.S. Peace and Security, and obviously A.I.-driven.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this post are solely my own, published under my first amendment rights, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Government or any of its current or former federal agencies.

What Other People Say

Designed by Freepik

“After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling  83%  of the programs at USAID. 

The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States. In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining 18% of programs we are keeping (approximately 1000) to now be administered more effectively under the State Department. Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform.” — Secretary Marco Rubio, X post, March 10, 2025. @marcorubio. 

Two starkly opposite illustrative reactions to the Secretary's post on X (of the 14,000 comments):

• “83% isn’t enough. Abolish USAID! Why should my government force me to give my money to a foreign country where virtually every country on Earth have multi-billion dollar economies and could fund their own dang necessities?” -- @RallywithGalli 
• "People around the globe who depend on USAID will suffer and DIE. The US farmers who produce the food distributed by USAID will go bankrupt, as once again Trump’s idiocy decimates our AG sector. The economy will take a devastating hit as a result of this unnecessary and inhumane elimination of USAID funding. All of this fallout and you have the audacity to step foot in a church? You are deliberately causing harm and death to the ONE thing G-d loves above ALL else. His people. The Jesus you proclaim to worship does not know you.” -- @Thiswillhold. 

What Do I Think

Yes, undoubtedly, the program terminations are causing a significant economic, humanitarian, and long-term development mess. See for example, Life after USAID: Africa's Development, Education, and Health Care and this update from Sudan from from former USAID employee, Andrea Tracy.

At home, Americans (employees, contractors, grantees, vendors, suppliers, etc.) have lost their incomes, laid off their staff, and will probably fold their businesses. After all, USAID procurement rules try to maximize US-based purchases, including equipment, experts, bulk food, vehicles, and airline tickets. But also impacted are tens of thousands of non-Americans who were employed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), or working as contractors, vendors, suppliers, grantees, or landlords. The global ripple effect is ginormous. 

I am swirling in this aftermath and trying to make sense of it all—the personal stories, the calls for more cuts, the effort to go back to what it was before, and Congress. But I am forcing myself myself to step back and look at the ecosystem instead of the leaves on the tree. (Yes, this is much bigger than the forest/tree analogy). I have heard loud voices of those who complain the advocates for elimination are completely mis-informed about the impact, the nexus to U.S. foreign policy, or the benefits. I have also heard that there are other, more powerful forces at play here, that USAID is simply a scapegoat. 

But now I have to be introspective, intellectually honest, and listen to myself. 

<my former USAID colleagues, partners, vendors, and friends are not going to like this post. Be open: I actually submitted this piece to an online foreign policy publication before the 2024 election. They rejected it as too far-fetched>

In 2012, Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted that “U. S. foreign aid is intended to be a tool for fighting poverty, enhancing bilateral relationships, and/or protecting U. S. security and commercial interests.” CRS blamed Congress for USAID's failures. It stated, “over the years [Congress] added dozens of new, though often overlapping, aid objectives.” The report footnotes some of these: suppress the illicit manufacturing and trafficking in narcotics, alleviate human suffering caused by natural and manmade disasters, enhance antiterrorism skills, and strengthen US bilateral ties.

Lets be realistic. No organization, anywhere, can fulfill such a broad mandate with ridiculously overlapping objectives. And, at the same time, hope to survive a rapid, cursory, artificial [no] intelligence supported, dodgy dogged review. Not even a committee of development, security, and humanitarian experts working for a year could unravel and understand how every single grant or contract constituting $40-$50 billion in effort supports a particular element of the 276-page Foreign Assistance Act as passed by Congress on September 4, 1961 and amended many times since. These justifications are not in the award title, nor can they readily be found in the project summary. Oftentimes they are buried in the internal justification documents, the ones are saved in the government records years before the contract or grant is issued. I know because I generated many such justifications myself. 

Intellectual Honesty

The chips have fallen, the cards are dealt, or the flight has left the gate. Pick your favorite analogy. At this point we know that more than ¾ of the programs are being cancelled. The remainder will fold into the new USAID section of the Department of State.

The Courts could, theoretically, intervene and conclude that USAID is an independent entity. I seriously doubt it given the number of times in recent history that an administration has called for USAID to be folded back into the State Department. See for example this 2018 Brookings Institute article. More convincing, however, are the original texts. Since "textualism" is the court's yardstick, look at the original executive order (10973 signed by President Kennedy on November 3, 1961), after the Foreign Assistance Act was enacted:

SEC. 102. Agency for International Development. (a) The Secretary shall establish an agency in the Department of State to be known as the Agency for International Development

Proponents of an independent USAID will point at the 1998 amendments to declare that USAID is an independent agency. First, this law provides even more blatantly:

SEC. 1522. ADMINISTRATOR OF AID REPORTING TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. The Administrator of the Agency for International Development, appointed pursuant to section 624(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2384(a)), shall report to and be under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State. and

SEC. 1523. ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT. (a) AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Under the direction of the President, the Secretary of State shall coordinate all United States assistance

Second, this law does allow for restructuring, under certain conditions, and restricts abolishment of USAID (see 22 USC 6563). The DC Court of Appeals Justice Gregory, on 3/28/25, acknowledged this in his concurring opinion of an appeal in USAID Staff/Contractors v. Musk (see details on p. 21).

Justice Gregory emphasized "I do, therefore, think that the Executive branch has unconstitutionally invaded the role of the Legislature, upsetting the separation of powers." He voiced his opposition to the shuttering of USAID. But shuttering is not the same as restructuring under the State Department, which is the most probable end result once the three branches of government sort it all out.

Evolution

USAID has evolved: just take a look at the evolution of its logo from a 2016 USAID Graphics manual.

What happens now? It's up to Congress. Will Congress have the audacity to comprehensively address foreign assistance? Unfortunately, the prospect of a reevaluation of USAID’s enabling legislation is fraught with political peril that lawmakers would not have previously confronted. Now they are forced to. USAID has been operating under significantly different geopolitical and economic conditions than it did when it was founded over 60 years ago. Its original purpose is outdated, especially as domestic priorities demand greater attention and funding. And don't forget that USAID itself was created to replace other U.S. development programs including the post-World War II Marshall Plan.

The Agency’s statutory purpose has long been buried and capped with a Berlin Wall tombstone. When President Kennedy signed the amendments to the nascent Foreign Assistance Act in 1962, he highlighted its core mission: to provide military and economic support to nations on the “rim of the communist world”. More than 30 years after the Cold War, marked by President Reagan's policies that contributed to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that original purpose remains stubbornly intact.

Although the Act’s contemporary language is less explicit, it blatantly promotes capitalism and democracy. It maintains that our prosperity is best served by fostering nations that “respect individual civil and economic rights and freedoms.”

More importantly, I really believe many of USAID's programs would fail a 21st century constitutional litmus test. USAID’s primary initiatives, the ones that have caused so much angst over the past few weeks, focus on health, agriculture, energy, economic development, education, and strengthening of democracy and civil society. These programs would be highly commendable if they were funded by multinational organizations, foundations, or charities. They indeed save lives, strengthen governance, and alleviate suffering for millions abroad. Abroad, not at home. 

USAID advocates maintain that the U.S. allocates only a fraction—less than 1%—of our federal budget to foreign assistance. While accurate, this overlooks the reality that USAID's annual budget of $40-50 billion surpasses the individual budgets of more than Tribal nations, territories, and half of our states. Doesn’t Congress have a greater constitutional obligation to address the quality of lives of millions in our own most impoverished counties, native Alaskans, Hawaiians, and Tribes, and our territories (see my December post on US and its territories).

Perhaps you believe that wealthy nations have moral obligations to assist others. Helping those in need is an essential, noble, and fundamental human duty. I believe that wealthy individuals absolutely have this ethical obligation. However, I believe there is a crucial distinction between the ethical responsibilities of individuals and those of governments. A government’s role must be strictly tied to its mandate. In our case, “for the people by the people”, “general welfare”, and “common defense”.

The U.S. Constitution mandates that Congress allocate tax dollars to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States …” (Article 1, Section 8). Past presidents have questioned our authority to give any foreign assistance. Starting with our funding father and fourth president James Madison. 

• In 1794, when considering legislation to assist Haitian refugees,  Madison firmly stated that he “…could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” 
• In 1847, amid discussions of offering aid for the Irish Potato Famine, President James Polk echoed Madison's stance and threatened to veto a bill, asserting that, “…my solemn conviction is that Congress possesses no power to use the public money for any such purpose.” 
• In 1892, Tennessee Representative Patterson further emphasized this point, asking the House, “have we the power or the right to distribute charity to the people of foreign countries? The Government of the United States is not an eleemosynary institution....”

Why Should You Care

Nation-building and international development fall under the mandate of international organizations like the United Nations, or charities and foundations. Not the U.S. Government according to our 250-year constitution. Despite their critics and flaws, these international organizations' missions of improving global quality of life is more aligned than that of our government.

Over 80% of USAID’s obligations support social services for non-Americans; less than 1% supported peace and security programs. Why is USAID asked to win hearts and minds? We are not competing in a popularity contest nor can our supporters within a general populace counter the few that hate us. We cannot nor should not try and compete with China’s global infrastructure programs because we can never win. Our government’s mandate is towards our domestic infrastructure, confidence in governance, and social services.

<a note on this 80% number, which is from the foreign assistance dashboard in 2024. The Secretary’s 2025 tweet stated that 83% of programs are being cut.>

 

Congress alone has the authority to address these problems. The executive branch is required to implement the Foreign Assistance Act and adhere to annual appropriations laws. The courts have tended to defer to Congress’s clearly stated intentions, no matter how outdated those may be. 

We must demand a reexamination of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act and question whether it genuinely serves the general welfare of the American voters and taxpayers as intended. If overseas development contributes, tangibly, to this purpose, then explain how. If you want Americans to donate generously to international development, then perhaps new vehicles (such as double tax credits) are needed. 

References

CRS 2012: Marian Leonardo Lawson, Marian Leonardo. “Does Foreign Aid Work? Efforts to Evaluate U. S. Foreign Assistance,” (Congressional Research Service, 7–5700, R42827, November 19,. 2012),. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42827.pdf.