Editorial: US aid agency shouldn't be above scrutiny

The Editorial Board, Las Vegas Review-Journal on Feb 6, 2025

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Donald Trump and Elon Musk have triggered panic in Washington with their efforts to cap the U.S. foreign aid spigot. To the extent that this ignites a conversation about how best to direct billions in American assistance abroad, the move is long overdue. But the White House will need congressional help to accomplish many of its objectives in this area.

On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced he was taking over as head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which spent $44.2 billion in fiscal 2024 on global humanitarian and other programs. Critics believe that the agency directs too much American taxpayer money promoting progressive political causes and that much spending supports waste, fraud and corruption.

Rubio acted after higher-ups at USAID were not forthcoming when the Trump administration and Musk’s DOGE commission sought information on agency spending. “Their basic attitude is we don’t work for anyone,” Rubio explained, adding, “There are things that are happening at USAID that we should not be involved in funding and or that we have a lot of questions about, but they’re completely uncooperative. So we had no choice but to take dramatic steps to bring this thing under control.”

Democrats argue that Rubio and the administration are trampling the separation of powers. But the agency was created 60 years ago via executive order and became quasi-independent by an act of Congress in 1998. The enabling legislation notes the head of USAID “shall report to and be under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the secretary of state.” Rubio had every right to step in.

Foreign aid, which accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, is a popular target. Polls show many Americans believe that Washington sends too much money overseas. There’s little doubt that a deep dive into the books would turn up problems. For example, Republicans have accused the organization of allowing Hamas to divert million in USAID funds intended for Gaza.

But there are also legitimate strategic objectives to supporting underdeveloped nations. “We do know that there are good programs that have existed out there that have benefited the stability of many regions around the world, which, in turn, benefits the United States of America,” said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa. “But unfortunately, we have seen those at the top again that have really tried to stop members of Congress from understanding how our taxpayer dollars are flowing through the agency.”

Trump does not have the authority to eliminate USAID. That would be up to Congress. But he certainly has the power as chief executive to reform the bureaucracy while taking action against employees who won’t cooperate with efforts to ensure they’re working in the best interests of U.S. taxpayers.

_____