USAID’s Bill Kristol Problem

USAID is Accomplishing Everything—Corruption, Stupidity, Incompetence—Except for Advancing our National Interest

By Chuck Warren

The Trump administration has paused all activities by the USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) for 90 days to review them, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced that the agency would move under the State Department’s purview, though this might require congressional action.

Amidst the chaos, there is a lot of (mis)information going around about what USAID does, but very little about how it works and what its purpose was supposed to be when it was created.

USAID was created during the Cold War as a measure to buy—quite literally—the goodwill of developing countries and prevent them from turning to the Soviet Union and it worked brilliantly.

However, USAID’s most successful program happened after the Cold War and during George W. Bush’s administration. PEPFAR (Presidential Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) started in 2003. For about $6 billion a year, the United States has saved approximately 25 million lives from dying of malaria and HIV/AIDS.

It’s very difficult to argue against PEPFAR. Hundreds of millions of Africans today are grateful to America and would rather be on our side than China’s. And for little money, Americans are scoring major points with the big guy up there. And it is not ideological indoctrination either, it’s plain and simple life-saving.

Meanwhile, China is trying to compete with us to win over influence in the developing world, especially Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. This is through its Belt and Road Initiative. In fact, China has spent much more than we have on development aid and loans, gaining influence in those countries and diminishing ours.

How did we let this happen? A combination of neglect, stupidity, and corruption.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has highlighted programs that have been counterproductive ... frankly stupid. Democrats were going to developing countries with conservative cultures and telling them thatm to take our aidm they needed to change their laws on LGBT issues and diversity—and then they could use the money for sensitivity training. There was also a rival offer: China was offering them money to build bridges and roads. Which one do you think they liked more?

But there are legitimate institutional criticisms of USAID. Many of its personnel—as well as Democratic administrations—over time became confused that the purpose of the agency was being a humanitarian NGO, not a tool of U.S. foreign policy. A gift basket for progressive friends and allies. They stopped prioritizing giving aid to countries we had the most interests in and acted like an NGO that would find those most in need. In other words, they are confused that their constituents are foreign nations, not Americans, prioritizing aid based on their needs, not ours.

And then there’s the Bill Kristol problem of USAID. As you might have seen, USAID gave money to the Rockefeller Foundation, which has given money to Defending Democracy Together Institute, an anti-Trump organization founded by Bill Kristol and Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark.

They are denying that they have taken any money from USAID: The Rockefeller Foundation has many donors, and USAID is just one of them, and it gives to many other organizations serving different causes, from humanitarian work abroad to anti-Trump activism.

The problem is that money is fungible. As much as they might pretend that funds from USAID definitely do not touch U.S. politics because they use separate bank accounts, it’s all one giant, corrupt pot.

This corruption is a consequence of good intentions. It is an article among conservatives of faith that the government is incompetent and the private sector does things better. Following this logic, the government has been delegating USAID’s work mostly to private-sector contractors.

Because these are not government policymakers, they don’t think about what is best for America or what other countries need. At best, they think about how to do charity for their favorite causes. At worst, they are thinking about how to make money for themselves.

But a U.S. diplomat would not do this. Our diplomats talk to foreign governments and know what they need money for, what China is offering them, and whether we have any interest in those countries anyway.

Here’s a problem: These contractors are not the typical private-sector companies that need to make a profit by generating wealth. Their revenue comes from the government. So, instead of maximizing efficiency in their work, these contractors’ expertise is in lobbying Congress and administrations to get grants and will tell politicians what they want to hear for that sweet, sweet dollar. If you’re a Democrat who likes DEI, they have the best PowerPoint slides on how to spend money on transgender comics in Peru and DEI in Serbia.

These NGOs are very progressive—so much so that their priorities are anathema to most of America's priorities and national security. So while they are handing out money for transgender comics with one hand, they are giving it to Bill Kristol and other anti-Republican organizations with another.

We are accomplishing everything—corruption, stupidity, incompetence— except for advancing the national interest. But also, we still need to give out foreign aid so the Chinese don’t win the battle over influence against us. Which brings us to Secretary Rubio’s proposal.

The problem with U.S. diplomacy is that it is all talk and no action. Why? Because the State Department has no diplomacy tool. The secretary of state can talk with foreign governments all he wants, but to convince them to do anything, he needs other departments—defense, the treasury that does sanctions, or USAID that gives out aid—to act. Our diplomats spend a lot of time in foreign countries understanding their incentives and needs, but that’s all useless.

By bringing the USAID in as an arm of the State Department, U.S. diplomacy will be enhanced to pursue U.S. policy objectives in a strategic way, rather than giving out aid for charity.

In fact, the United Kingdom realized this. In 2020, it dissolved its department of international aid as a separate agency and moved it to the foreign office.

The United States should follow suit. Furthermore, it should stop relying on contractors to do the job for it. We’ve tried it, and it’s not working. Instead of advancing U.S. interests, they are lobbying the government to get money for the stupidest things.

We should neither get rid of foreign aid altogether nor keep the current system. If we reform it, we can weed out corruption and strengthen our position in the world by doing good for others. This way, everybody wins—well, not Bill Kristol and Democrats, but I am willing to make this sacrifice if I must.

Note: the opinions expressed herein are those of Chuck Warren only and not his co-host Sam Stone or Breaking Battlegrounds’ staff.