Though, most of our work has been focused on the European Parliament and its (dis)honourable members so far, the recent steps taken by the Trump administration against USAID, followed by horrified outcries in certain political circles, prompted in-depth research into the darkest secrets of one of the largest aid agencies of the world.
It almost started as a fairy tale, you know, once upon a time, in a land far-far away …
It was 1961. The once isolationist United States was actively countering the Soviet Union all over the world. Several organizations aided this work, in a charmingly chaotic cacophony of goals and voices.
Then, a few enthusiastic politicians had a terrific idea and decided to unite those programs under one agency to usher US foreign assistance programs into the ‘Decade of Development’.
In no time, a noble organization was born, heralded as a beacon of hope and change. Fuelled by altruism and the overwhelming desire to ‘make a difference’.
Over time, the organization’s once simple and clear goals began to undergo a curious metamorphosis.
Initially, it sought to address a handful of straightforward issues (like providing humanitarian aid and helping socioeconomic development with the aim of furthering U.S. interests) – problems tangible enough for anyone to grasp and rally behind. There was a refreshing clarity in its mission, a sense of purpose that resonated with those it served and those who supported it.
Yet, as the organization grew in size and influence, so did its ambitions, albeit in ways that were far less transparent.
What were once humble, well-defined objectives evolved into lofty, ambiguous aspirations, hidden behind ‘fancy jargon’. Gone were the days of achieving quantifiable outcomes: in their place came vague initiatives that looked good on paper but were, in practice, riddled with question marks, creating a perfect smokescreen allowing the organization to dodge accountability.
Somehow, along the way, ambition morphed into greed, transparency into secrecy and values into mere buzzwords on a glossy brochure and social media posts.
Fast forward to today, and what was once a shining symbol of virtue has curdled into an elaborate mockery of its original ideas. The façade still almost looked like the original one, but what lay beyond … the lines what it claimed to do and what it actually did became indistinguishably murky, leaving many wonder whether it was still serving the common good or merely serving itself.
Alas, this is not a fairy tale but a summary of the history of the United States Agency for International Development, a.k.a. USAID.
The organization that oversees (well, oversaw) the distribution of about $23 billion annually has faced scrutiny for a very long time, yet, somehow always avoided taking responsibility.
Michael Sobolik (a former aide to Senator Ted Cruz) said, ‘sure, USAID was doing some highly questionable stuff that’s worthy of review’.
What a euphemism.
To be fair, he continued with saying that there was stuff worthy of saving, as well (‘don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, Beijing is hoping we do exactly that’).
But when something is rotten to the core, the only way forward is to tear it down completely and start anew, untainted by the bad.
And there is bad, everywhere. Maybe not always completely intentional, but as the result of gross neglect and/or complete lack of understanding of the complexities of a situation.
Think for example aid for Gaza.
Nobody disputes that the situation of civilians is dire in that narrow, completely encircled and crowded strip of land. Infrastructure is crumbling, basic supplies are non-existent, a boiling humanitarian crisis.
Yet, how could anybody in their right mind that given Hamas’ full control of the area, some or most of the aid sent there wouldn’t end in their hands? Maybe in fairy tales.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark probably wasn’t exaggerating when he wrote in 2024 that ‘credible reporting indicated that Hamas terrorists have diverted dis aid, indisputable evidence demonstrates that the aid was always at high risk of diversion’. In the senator’s estimates, more than one billion dollars were misused this way, prolonging the conflict instead of helping the civilians.
Maybe USAID officials didn’t actively participate in Hamas’ actions like UNRWA employees did, but their conduct was ‘morally questionable’ and ‘strategically catastrophic’, either way. The issue points at the lack of a reliable vetting process and security checks on field/local employees.
On a side note, UNRWA promised to take appropriate measures against the nine staff members who were involved in the October 7 attack and the organization has also made commitments ‘toward complete accountability and reform’. That equals admitting having serious issues themselves with internal scrutiny.
This lack of control (or lack of care) is evident in many other operations.
In a similar instance, though, this time in Syria, $122 million was awarded to an NGO. Originally intended for food kits to support Syrians in times of a bloody civil war, most of the aid got seized by the An-Nusrah Front or was sold on the black market. The operation went unnoticed for four years, between 2015 and 2019.
In a report published in 2021, the Office of Inspector General – USAID drew attention to the ‘weakness in oversight’, pointing out that while ‘in complex emergencies such as Syria … managing cross-border activities is challenging’, this ‘left USAID’s Syria humanitarian response vulnerable to fraud and abuse’.
So far, so good.
But that report covered a period before the one referred to above, namely the time between April 2012 and February 2015, when the investigations started after several allegations have reached headquarters.
According to the same report, ‘by September 2017, OIG investigations has received 109 allegations of fraud schemes, including bid-rigging, bribery, collusion, kickbacks and product substitution across eight USAID implementers, five subawardees, and dozens of suppliers’.
We must live and learn, as they say, but it seems that USAID was unable to do so.
Not even an ongoing investigation could make it exercise more caution when handing out millions of taxpayer dollars and the scheme could continue for two more years.
In fairy tales, three is often the magical number.
Coincidentally, a third, very similar case (of USAID financing terrorist organizations) also came to light: $100,000 worth American aid found its way (via Helping Hand for Relief and Development, a Michigan-based charity) to designated terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Pakistan’s Falah-e-Insaniat (the latter was the basically the ‘rebranded’ Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist organization responsible for the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks).
Just like in the previous cases, USAID was accused of ‘gross negligence’ for failing to investigate the allegations for eight months. To make matters worse, it not only failed to conduct an inquiry, but has sent an additional $78,000 package, in spite of several warnings.
U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) identified several USAID projects in the Asian country that, at the bare minimum, were useless, on many other occasions, explicitly harmful.
For example, the $1.46 billion that was spent on ‘alternative development programs’ to encourage farmers to move away from opium production. The results? They took the money and drank their teas, happily chatting about American stupidity next to their poppy fields. If anything, opium cultivation increased by 119 percent in Kandahar, thanks to the new irrigation systems developed with the help of USAID.
The same lack of caution and oversight might have led to USAID dollars finding their way to Chinese laboratories via the EcoHealth Alliance. While the origins of COVID-19 are still somewhat unclear and China and the Wuhan Laboratory still denies any wrongdoing, it is questionable whether amidst heightening tensions between Washington and Beijing, the USAID needed to pour its resources on China. Of all places.
Whenever attention was drawn to some irregularities, the leadership of USAID decided to ignore the warnings.
Like when SIGAR asked the agency to explain its many failures in Afghanistan, the answer was that of denial, claiming that it was impossible to micro-manage every single project.
Or USAID has, in fact, swept those issues under the rug, in the name of the ‘greater good’ – always hiding behind the claim that the agency’s work was far too important to put it under more scrutiny.
The Washington Post reported about it already in 2014, accusing USAID of removing critical details from public reports.
For example, when it came to bailing out a few employees of pro-democracy NGOs in Egypt. A group of whistleblowers (auditors and employees) claimed that critical assessments were removed from the report assessing the agency’s work in Egypt. The original, 21-page document contained details about a $4.6 million payment to the Egyptian government (in exchange for the freedom of 16 American non-government workers), but the redacted and subsequently published final version did not.
Maybe it wouldn’t have fit into the 9 pages, into which the original report got compressed.
Or maybe it would have raised too many questions, as one among those Americans was the son of Ray LaHood, then U.S. transportation secretary.
The whistleblowers claim that this wasn’t an isolated incident.
On a side note, it wasn’t SIGAR or the Office of Inspection General, that first pointed Heritage Foundation has demanded the abolition of USAID already in 1995.
That means thirty years ago.
It pointed at several failures: ‘USAID has failed in its mission to promote economic development overseas. Despite billions of dollars spent on economic assistance, most of the countries receiving U.S. development aid remained mired in poverty, repression and dependence. In addition AID lacks focus and, notwithstanding repeated attempts at reform, is poorly managed’.
The conclusions of The Heritage Foundation?
‘Only a complete overhaul of America’s foreign aid programs will make those programs more efficient and effective’.
Fast forward three decades and realize that nothing has changed.
Wherever the USAID put its tentacles and well-stuffed pockets, corruption ensured.
The Office of Inspector General published a report of its work in 2022, proudly advertising all the fraudulent schemes it discovered since the previous report.
It lists a $6.9 million civil settlement with an NGO that submitted inflated invoices for the humanitarian assistance it delivered.
It admits that an Africa-based NGO diverted USAID funding to a national political party.
And the list goes on.
Then there are all those occasions when USAID supported programs that don’t necessarily serve American interests, or are, in fact, harmful, thereby violating the foundations of its very existence.
Pushing for abortion clinics in Africa.
$1.5 million to advance DEI programs in Serbia’s workplaces.
$47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.
$ 2 million for sex changes and ‘LGBT activism’ in Guatemala, to name just a few of such projects identified by the White House.
Progressive values, for sure.
But in countries with more conservative morals and values, not to mention far more pressing economic and social problems, adversity is the likely reaction to such reform ideas.
In cases like this, the damage might exceed the price tag.
The answer might have been only stunned silence, but in most cases, more: anything from police confusion to outright frustration in response to the complete lack of sensitivity to local struggles.
A recent study (focusing on Afghanistan and on donors in general, not specifically USAID) points out that several aid efforts failed ‘because the donors did not have a clear idea of the relationship between politics, aid and human rights’ and ‘they tried to use aid to bring about change in the Taliban’s policies and attitude’.
The statement is true to many of USAID’s projects as well: aid was no longer used only as a tool to provide relief in humanitarian crises or economic distress, but also as a means to identify ‘change makers’ who would implement some politically charged ideas.
Throughout its six decades of existence, USAID has repeatedly proved that it is unable to fundamentally change its inner workings or to establish an oversight mechanism that would have ensured that it used those billions of dollars in a useful way.
The old adage might be relevant even today: Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam (Furthermore, I think that Carthage must be destroyed).
When nothing else works, the only way forward is what President Trump chose: a complete reset.