USAID Needs to Be Evaluated…the Right Way

Since President Donald Trump returned to office, he has granted significant influence over federal programs to Elon Musk, whose opinions now seem to shape major policy decisions. One of the first agencies to come under attack is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) — an organization many Americans had never even heard of until last week.

Musk recently claimed that Trump confirmed he wanted to shut down USAID, an agency that distributes billions in humanitarian and development aid worldwide. The agency’s website was taken down, and almost all employees have been put on administrative leave. During her first White House press briefing, Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, claimed that Trump had prevented a “preposterous waste of taxpayer money,” alleging that USAID was about to send $50 million worth of condoms to Gaza. Trump later inflated that figure to $100 million.

There was just one problem: it wasn’t true.

A federal report from last year showed that USAID spent zero dollars on condoms in the Middle East in 2021, 2022, and 2023. When asked for proof, officials pointed to vague State Department comments — none of which supported Leavitt’s claim, let alone proved it. So why spread this misinformation? The condom claim was a deliberate distraction — designed to stir outrage rather than create meaningful discussion about USAID’s role. But USAID does deserve scrutiny — for real reasons, not sensationalist ones.

What Does USAID Actually Do?

USAID was founded in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy to provide humanitarian assistance and international development aid. However, unlike private charities, USAID’s work isn’t simply charity — it’s strategic.

While the U.S. doesn’t explicitly demand favors in return, this assistance is a form of soft control — using economic and humanitarian aid to shape the policies and economies of other nations.

USAID helps build a country’s mines and trains its workforce → American companies gain easier access to critical minerals.

USAID funds agricultural training programs → U.S. agribusiness benefits from increased food exports.

USAID helps stabilize foreign governments → The U.S. gains stronger geopolitical alliances.

This approach benefits American interests, but it also raises serious questions about how much power USAID has, who it actually serves, and whether taxpayer money is being spent wisely.

USAID has been weaponized to serve U.S. corporate interests, particularly in industries like agriculture and pesticides. USAID funded a pesticide industry PR effort known as v-Fluence, which attacked American journalists Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman for their reporting on harmful pesticides. These journalists exposed how certain pesticide companies lobbied against food safety regulations. Instead of promoting transparency, USAID helped discredit legitimate concerns — at taxpayers’ expense. Additionally, USAID has supported policies that favor large agribusinesses over local farmers, especially in developing countries, leading to economic dependency rather than true development.

USAID’s assistance isn’t always neutral — it can be used to push specific political narratives. One particularly troubling case involves Ukraine, where USAID-funded groups spread unsubstantiated claims that American voices supporting peace negotiations with Russia were Kremlin agents. The U.S. government is legally restricted from using taxpayer dollars for domestic propaganda, but USAID provides a convenient loophole: the agency funds foreign groups, which then attack American journalists and politicians through outside advocacy. You could have gone to their website to see this for yourself, until Musk and Trump shut it down.

This raises a critical question: Should U.S. tax dollars be used — indirectly — to silence American voices?

In 2010 USAID funded a social media site in Cuba to interfere with the Cuban government. Documents show the US government planned to build a subscriber base through “non-controversial content”: news messages on soccer, music, and hurricane updates. Later when the network reached a critical mass of subscribers, perhaps hundreds of thousands, operators would introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize “smart mobs” — mass gatherings called at a moment’s notice that might trigger a Cuban spring, or, as one USAID document put it, “renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society.”

Unlike some government programs with clear oversight, USAID often bypasses direct Congressional scrutiny. Many of its programs operate through third-party contractors, creating layers of bureaucracy that make it difficult to track where money actually goes. Whether you believe USAID is a wasteful bureaucracy or a vital tool for diplomacy, one thing is clear: more transparency benefits everyone. Americans deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent — without having to sift through a maze of contractors, NGOs, and backdoor deals.

While USAID has been involved in controversial activities, not all of its programs are problematic. Shutting down the agency without considering the benefits of certain initiatives is shortsighted. Some USAID programs have made a real difference in humanitarian aid and global health efforts:

• USAID has played a key role in responding to humanitarian crises, providing food, shelter, and medical aid in war zones and natural disaster areas.
• The agency has funded anti-malaria campaigns, HIV/AIDS treatments, and maternal health programs that have saved millions of lives worldwide.
• USAID has helped fund schools, literacy programs, and workforce development in impoverished nations to create long-term economic stability.

The issue is not whether USAID should exist but rather which programs are effective and which ones need to go.

If USAID is going to be evaluated or restructured, it needs to be done the right way — through proper Congressional oversight, during budgeting, not billionaire influence or political theatrics. Who decides what agencies exist and how they’re funded? Congress — not the president, and certainly not a single billionaire. What should real reform look like? A full, transparent review of USAID’s spending to ensure funds serve American interests.

• Stricter oversight to prevent taxpayer money from being used for corporate PR or political propaganda.
• Clear objectives for foreign aid — ensuring it serves humanitarian and strategic purposes rather than backdoor deals.

No single billionaire — whether Musk, Soros, or Bezos — should have the power to dictate which agencies exist or how taxpayer money is spent.

Elon Musk and Trump’s attacks on USAID aren’t about fixing corruption — they’re about consolidating control. While USAID does need reform, shutting it down without a plan is reckless. USAID should not be above criticism, but that criticism should be based on facts, not misinformation.

If we’re going to fix waste, fraud, or corruption, it must be done transparently, legally, and with the American people in mind. Reforming USAID means cutting waste, not cutting corners.

At the end of the day, our foreign aid policies should serve America — not corporations, not political interests, and certainly not the whims of a single billionaire.