Craig DeLuz: USAID: From Cold War Sentinel to Ideological Sideshow

USAID “was conceived as a means to project American influence globally, reinforcing allies and countering adversarial ideologies,” writes Project 21 Ambassador Craig DeLuz in a commentary published at The Washington Stand, continuing:

USAID has increasingly morphed into what can only be described as a vessel for social agendas that are often contrary to American interests….Such misallocation of resources should not only rile conservatives but all taxpayers who expect their contributions to be directed toward meaningful objectives….

Trump’s administration should not retreat to isolationism but should recalibrate its foreign aid approach to prioritize American interests and efficiently allocate resources. It’s about aligning spending with a strategic vision rather than continuing to finance a bureaucracy riddled with inefficiencies and political patronage.

Read Craig’s entire commentary below.

In the annals of American governance, agency functions often undergo a transformation that strays from their original mandate. USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development), established during the Cold War, initialed its mission with clear intentions: to advance U.S. foreign policy and create a bulwark against the spread of communism. Over time, however, it appears that the agency has deviated from this objective, making a compelling case for its closure, as President Donald Trump suggests.

Craig DeLuz

Let’s first examine the rationale behind USAID’s founding. The agency was conceived as a means to project American influence globally, reinforcing allies and countering adversarial ideologies. Yet, as several commentators have noted, USAID has increasingly morphed into what can only be described as a vessel for social agendas that are often contrary to American interests. It has funded initiatives that range from LGBTQ advocacy in Africa to artistic performances far removed from the essential work of development aid. Such misallocation of resources should not only rile conservatives but all taxpayers who expect their contributions to be directed toward meaningful objectives.

The notion that some funds have been funneled towards leftist NGOs, many of which operate domestically and internationally, merits scrutiny. The sums expended on projects that do little to enhance U.S. foreign policy or foster goodwill among nations — like a theatrical production in Ireland or a comic book in Peru — reflect an agency that has lost its compass. When USAID’s budget, which can amount to nearly $50 billion, caters more to ideological pursuits than to substantive support for economic growth or poverty alleviation, it indicates a flawed framework and casts doubt on the efficacy of its administrative apparatus.

Moreover, the alleged waste and fraud associated with USAID’s operations bespeak a system lacking accountability. Reports, such as those from the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which highlight billions allocated to organizations entangled with terrorism — a transgression that contradicts the very principles of American foreign aid — are inexcusable. Is it any wonder, then, that President Trump argues that the agency is beyond repair, likening its condition to a “bowl of worms” rather than an “apple with a worm?” Such disparagement is illustrative of the urgency for decisive reform or outright dissolution.

Critics of Trump’s strategy often raise concerns that cutting ties with an agency founded on good intentions equates to abandoning global responsibilities. However, there is a dichotomy that must be recognized: while USAID’s original premise of promoting development had merit, its execution has been flawed and perilously misaligned. Trump’s administration should not retreat to isolationism but should recalibrate its foreign aid approach to prioritize American interests and efficiently allocate resources. It’s about aligning spending with a strategic vision rather than continuing to finance a bureaucracy riddled with inefficiencies and political patronage.

The ideological warfare that ensues from decisions like Trump’s proposed cuts is illustrative of a broader conflict: the tension between entrenched bureaucratic interests and the desire for a government that acts in accordance with the public’s desires. By leveraging pragmatic governance and appointing capable individuals, such as Elon Musk’s team, who are tasked with injecting efficiency into government operations, the administration aims to carve away at the deeply entrenched deep state — a task that is inherently contentious but essential.

Lastly, it is crucial to note that any restructuring initiative prescribes due diligence. The points made against Elon Musk’s work regarding USAID concerns his lack of a traditional governmental background; however, it is imperative to recognize that the executive branch’s authority allows for flexibility in management approaches. Amidst a sea of discontent from the Left — who lobby for a continuation of their influence via agencies like USAID — the focus should remain on the principle: taxpayer dollars are best spent aligning with a national interest that emphasizes efficiency and accountability.

President Trump’s strategy to shut down or radically restructure USAID is rooted in valid concerns that merit consideration. The agency’s trajectory has strayed far from its original mission, becoming a financial pipeline for entities that foster ideologies countervailing to core American values. Rather than engaging in emotional responses to changes in directives, it’s time for a recalibration that reflects a committed stance towards efficiency, accountability, and the restoration of USAID’s integrity — or its dissolution entirely as a byproduct of its failure to meet the expectations set forth at its inception.

Project 21 Ambassador Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz. This was first published at The Washington Stand.