IA “FAKT” already wrote that USAID recently suspended financing of all programs and projects in Ukraine for 90 days in connection with the directive of the US State Department on the audit of foreign aid, in particular, the Agency deprived of financial support Ukrainian mass media.
Millions for musicals and comics: USAID’s questionable spending draws criticism
USAID – a symbol of international aid or a corruption hole? For years, the US Agency for International Development has poured millions into projects that have drawn criticism for their dubious feasibility. The other day the White House published a list of some of these costs with references to relevant sources. The list turned out to be a lot of exotics.
For example, USAID allocated 1.5 million dollars for initiatives aimed at supporting diversity and inclusion in Serbian workforces and business communities. The $70,000 in funding went towards the production of a musical addressing the themes of diversity, equity and inclusion in Ireland. $2.5 million was allocated for the purchase of electric vehicles to support environmental initiatives in Vietnam.
An opera exploring gender identity and the transgender experience in Colombia was funded with $47,000. A comic highlighting the life and challenges of transgender people in Peru was sponsored for $32,000. LGBT activism in Guatemala received $2 million in support, and tourism development in Egypt received $6 million.
Senator Joni Ernst said that USAID financed the Chinese laboratory that has become the focus of global conspiracy theories about COVID-19. $1 million was allegedly earmarked for “research programs,” but their actual use remains a mystery.
USAID supported initiatives to develop and distribute contraceptives tailored to the needs of specific communities in developing countries.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been channeled to support agricultural projects in Afghanistan, which some say have fueled the cultivation of poppies and the production of heroin, which benefited the Taliban.
About $9 million of American taxes could end up in the pockets of terrorist groups. USAID’s grant and contract system is so opaque that the money is often fall into into questionable hands.
Pottery courses in Morocco? Summer schools in Lebanon? USAID highlights millions on “social initiatives” that are difficult to explain in terms of real benefits.
One of USAID’s prime contractors agreed pay out $3.1 million following an embezzlement investigation. Some of this money could have gone to militants in Syria.
The US Congress has repeatedly demanded transparency in the agency’s spending, but its leadership systematically sabotages audits. Senator Ernst is straight accused USAID deliberately blocking investigations.
Is it any wonder that the US Agency for International Development has been pouring millions into projects for years, the feasibility and effectiveness of which only raise questions? Expenditures of such magnitude quite naturally caused a wave of criticism and forced USAID to review its activities, demanding greater transparency and accountability in the spending of taxpayers’ funds.
The future of USAID is under threat: criticism, reforms and a possible merger with the State Department
USAID, created half a century ago, is the main conduit for US foreign aid, with a budget of $43.79 billion in 2023. Funding is provided by taxpayers through the federal budget approved by Congress. It is Congress that decides how to distribute these funds.
Control over agency costs is carried out through internal and external audits. The Office of the Inspector General conducts internal audits, and an external agency, the Government Accountability Office, conducts independent program evaluations.
Recent events put questioning the future of the agency. The Trump administration is considering merging USAID with the State Department, which would likely reduce its autonomy and cut staff. President Trump called the agency’s leadership “radical madmen”, and Elon Musk characterized it as “criminal organization”.
The moves are troubling Republicans who used to supported USAID as an important instrument of US soft power and countering Chinese influence. Some of them believe that closing the agency could negatively affect America’s national security and humanitarian efforts.
In addition, in social networks spreads misinformation about USAID funding, further complicating the discussion of its role and future.
Where USAID works most actively and effectively
USAID is more than just a bureaucratic structure. It soft power tool of the USA, which affects politics, economy and humanitarian processes in more than 130 countries of the world. In 2023, the United States spent about $65 billion on foreign aid, and most of this money was administered by USAID.
Last year, Ukraine received nearly $5.5 billion in aid. Of these, $3.9 billion went to the state budget, and the rest went to infrastructure restoration, energy support, and humanitarian programs.
The agency directs significant funds to Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Ethiopia, Jordan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nigeria, South Sudan and Syria are among the largest recipients of aid. Here, American money goes to fighting hunger, overcoming the consequences of conflicts, developing democracy and health care.
Without too much pathos, it can be said that USAID is not just a donor, but a driver of change that has helped countries solve the most pressing problems of our time: from saving lives to restoring educational institutions and fighting poverty.
Pandemics, wars and environmental disasters present new challenges. Agency in Ukraine financed a large-scale project to restore medical facilities in regions affected by the war. It is not only about new hospitals, but also about the availability of medical services for hundreds of thousands of people. USAID financed programs for building a sustainable health care system, in particular in the field of mental health.
Among other initiatives supported by the Agency in Ukraine is the “School of Public Health” program, which supported training of activists and doctors who work in the most difficult conditions. USAID financed programs not only for humanitarian aid, but also for the restoration of infrastructure to help communities to return to normal life.
USAID as an instrument of political pressure on the governments of the countries it assists
Big money creates big controversy. For many governments, especially authoritarian ones, USAID is not just an organization that provides humanitarian aid. It is a political player who uses funding as leverage.
Thus, the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, did not mince words – he directly expelled USAID from the country in 2013, accusing the agency of financing opposition movements: “We will no longer tolerate them interfering in our internal affairs.”. USAID, in turn, emphasized that its activities are aimed only at supporting economic development and democracy.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico went further and congratulated Elon Musk for his efforts to reduce USAID’s influence. He blamed agency in manipulating the political situation in Slovakia and supporting non-governmental organizations working against his government.
How real are these allegations? It is difficult to say. USAID funds projects to support democracy, transparent elections, and freedom of the press. However, for some regimes, democracy can seem a threat
The Trump administration is reviewing USAID’s funding policy, and countries such as Bolivia, Hungary and Slovakia support the idea of reducing the agency’s influence.
…For some, USAID is a hope for a better future. For others, it is an undisguised attempt to interfere in domestic politics. And while the world decides what to do with international aid, USAID remains at the center of the biggest political battles. Next time, we’ll look at how different US presidents and political parties have treated USAID and what changes they’ve made to control the agency. We will also analyze the role of USAID contractors, non-governmental organizations receiving aid with a dubious reputation, as well as possible connections between funded projects and destabilization in certain regions.
Tetyana Viktorova
