President John F. Kennedy swept into office in 1961 with an optimistic vision that inspired the nation. His inaugural address invited Americans to join a noble campaign to improve human flourishing.
“And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country,” Kennedy said. “My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Within months, that vision launched the Peace Corps, the Apollo moon mission, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
USAID was the first government body dedicated solely to helping other nations create the economic, political, and social institutions that would improve their citizens’ quality of life.
That was 64 years ago.
Today, USAID stands on the brink of closure, having lost the confidence of the president and members of Congress, particularly Republicans.
Champions of USAID see the Trump administration’s effort to close or reorganize the agency as a squabble over spending priorities or, worse, an effort to discontinue foreign aid altogether.
Republicans say that the point is not to eliminate foreign development or compassionate relief but to bring them back into the service of U.S. foreign policy.
Here’s how the agency that once represented the United States’ expansive global vision came to be a target for government reform.
Founding Vision
USAID was created to implement the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which states that helping developing countries join the world community as stable, economically viable nations is the best way to preserve “the individual liberties, economic prosperity, and security of the people of the United States.”
An archived version of the USAID website lists the various tactics used to achieve that aim. The agency moved from offering technical and capital assistance programs in the 1960s to food, health, education, and population planning programs in the 1970s.
The focus shifted to the development of free markets in the 1980s and finally to sustainable development in the 1990s, whereby countries were given foreign aid packages tailored to their particular needs. During the 2000s, USAID focused on rebuilding war-torn countries.
Along the way, USAID began to outsource much of the actual work to contractors, relying first on private voluntary organizations then on nongovernmental organizations, others in the private sector, and foundations.
Expanding Role
Congress, at the request of President Bill Clinton, reorganized foreign policy agencies in 1998. USAID became an independent agency, no longer under the Department of State.
The agency’s spending grew rapidly during the 2000s, rising from $7 billion in 2001 to nearly $18 billion in 2010. By 2023, the agency’s spending reached more than $42 billion.
Over the same period, 2001 to 2023, total federal spending jumped from $1.8 trillion with a $184 billion surplus to $6.1 trillion with a $1.7 trillion deficit.
In the early 2000s, USAID supporters advocated greater integration of foreign development into U.S. foreign policy and a larger role for the agency itself.
“The USAID administrator should be included as a member of the National Security Council and other high-level interagency deliberative bodies,” Andrew S. Natsios, a former USAID administrator, told the Senate in 2009.
That would have placed the USAID administrator at the table with the president and vice president in making national security decisions along with Cabinet-level officers: the secretaries of state, the treasury, and defense, and the national security adviser.
Questions About Management
Throughout those years, USAID did much admirable work and produced at least one widely heralded success: the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR), which began in 2003. The U.S. government, through PEPFAR, has spent more than $110 billion in the global HIV/AIDS response and, according to the State Department website, is credited with saving some 26 million lives.
Yet questions began to be raised about the management and accountability of the agency.
In 2003, Jess T. Ford, then-director of international affairs and trade for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), warned, “The combination of continued attrition of experienced foreign service officers, increased program funding, and emerging foreign policy priorities raises concerns regarding USAID’s ability to maintain effective oversight of its foreign assistance programs.”
President Barack Obama in 2009 sounded the alarm about federal agencies’ use of contractors, which he said was “plagued by massive cost overruns, outright fraud, and the absence of oversight and accountability.”
Also in 2009, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who had issued a call for “increased accountability of programs, and clear and tangible results” from USAID, said, “We have seen some progress, but we need to move faster.”
The warnings appear to have been well-founded, as the GAO and the Office of Inspector General both later found serious problems with the agency’s funding pipeline.
The GAO found that USAID had provided nearly $1 million, passed through other agencies, to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which the CIA has identified as the likely source of the virus that causes COVID-19.
According to the inspector general for USAID, $9 million intended for civilian relief in Syria was diverted to armed combatants by a fraudulent contractor between 2015 and 2018. Some of those funds went to the Al-Nusrah Front, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist group affiliated with al-Qaeda.
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), questioned USAID officials directly in 2023 about funding choices in Gaza.
“Palestinians are identifying with terror groups to promote their interests more,” Risch said. “Why is the administration asking for an additional $250 million? Whose interests will be advanced by this money?”
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), then the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, summarized his concern after listening to USAID Administrator Samantha Power’s response to a question about aid dollars distributed in Afghanistan.
“I just want to ensure that the U.S. taxpayer dollars are not directly funding the Taliban. You can’t completely assure that, and it’s troubling.”
Power responded by broadly summarizing the agency’s work in “more than 100 countries.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) summarized his lack of faith in USAID in a 2024 letter to Power, writing, “When American aid flows to Israel’s enemies—who are also our enemies—USAID is guilty of moral failure, strategic catastrophe, and betrayal of the American taxpayer.”
Elon Musk, head of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), told reporters on Feb. 11 that DOGE had uncovered “massive amounts of fraud” at USAID, though he did not elaborate.
“I think we probably caught way over a lot of billions of dollars already in what, two weeks, and it’s going to go to numbers that you’re not going to believe,” Musk said. “Much is incompetence, and much is dishonesty.”
CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Power why the agency has drawn so much criticism during a Feb. 6 interview. Power pointed to “misinformation” and “so many falsehoods now circulating about USAID.”
Resistance to Oversight
As questions were being raised about the allocation of funds, lawmakers were also becoming frustrated by the agency’s apparent unwillingness to provide answers.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who served in the Senate from 2011 to 2025, told reporters on Feb. 4: “It’s been 20 or 30 years where people have tried to reform it, and it refuses to reform, it refuses to cooperate. When we were in Congress we couldn’t even get answers to basic questions about programs.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) provided examples in a Feb. 4 letter to Rubio, recounting what she called USAID’s sabotage of congressional oversight and a “demonstrated pattern of obstructionism.” This included falsely claiming that certain documents were classified and stating that providing information on federal contracts to Congress would violate federal law.
The Epoch Times requested comment on the matter from USAID. A spokesperson from the State Department responded, “As a general matter, we do not comment on congressional correspondence.”
Mark Moyar, who was director of the Office of Civilian-Military Cooperation at USAID from 2018 to 2019, described an organization in which “bureaucrats have devised very crafty ways to hide money.”
In a Feb. 6 interview with Fox News, Moyar said political appointees were still finding programs that they hadn’t known existed more than two years into the first Trump administration.
Moyar was fired from USAID for allegedly publishing classified information. He alleges he was terminated in retaliation for his effort to expose corruption.
Other lawmakers have described USAID as tone-deaf to the concerns and culture of the countries in which it operates.
Rubio said the agency often undermines the work of the State Department by its program choices.
“They are supporting programs that upset the host government for whom we’re trying to work with on a broader scale,” he said in a Feb. 3 interview with Fox News.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), cited funding for “LGBTQIA programs” in countries that are more conservative than the United States, filing lawsuits against Catholic governments, and promoting atheism in Nepal, the home of Tibetan Buddhism, as examples of self-defeating actions.
“This is what gave USAID a black eye,” he said in a “Face the Nation” interview on Feb. 9.
Even as the agency is on the verge of closure, Trump officials have encountered “noncompliance” and “insubordination” from USAID staff, according to Peter Marocco, deputy administrator of USAID.
The Epoch Times requested comments from USAID but no response was received by the time of publication.
Reaction From Supporters
Some criticism of USAID is based on differing views on how to approach foreign aid, according to Henry E. Brady, a professor of political science and public policy at the University of California–Berkeley.
“The new administration has different cultural presumptions about what USAID should be doing and how it should do it,” Brady told The Epoch Times. “Consequently, USAID has lost trust among Republicans.”
Regarding congressional oversight, Brady said politics rather than fact-finding is often the goal these days. “As a result, agencies are skittish about providing information in this highly partisan world,” he said.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), speaking on the Senate floor, blamed DOGE’s influence for the closure of USAID’s Washington offices, saying it was illegal.
“Before our very eyes, an unelected shadow government is conducting a hostile takeover of the federal government,” Schumer said on Feb. 3.
Schumer also said the closure endangered the United States’ security by undermining efforts to fight terrorism in Asia and Africa through international aid.
Power said on Feb. 6, “It’s a disaster for U.S. national interests and national security,” citing a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry celebrating the United States’ suspension of foreign aid.
Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), a former USAID employee, said the Trump administration’s actions amount to “an American retreat” from the world.
“China doesn’t even need to fight for their influence around the world now because of our own effort. We’re doing China’s work for them,” Kim said on “Meet the Press” on Feb. 10.
Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) introduced legislation on Feb. 7 to require Senate confirmation of the State Department’s director of foreign assistance and stipulate that all funding for foreign aid be “used as directed” within 90 days of being provided by Congress.
“This legislation makes it abundantly clear that neither Presidents—nor unelected billionaire megadonors—can ignore the legal duty to implement the laws duly enacted by the Congress,” Van Hollen said in a statement.
Back on Mission
Republicans contend that getting foreign aid back to serving the United States’ interests is the endgame of the administration’s actions.
“I personally believe that USAID has a national security mission,“ McCaul said. ”If you go back to its inception in the ’60s under President Kennedy and the Cold War, it was to counter the Soviet Union. We need to return to the core mission principles.”
Ernst, while critical of the agency, has not called for its closure. She has asked for an independent analysis of USAID grant recipients.
Rubio has long championed foreign aid despite a mounting national debt.
“In every region of the world, we should always search for ways to use U.S. aid and humanitarian assistance to strengthen our influence, the effectiveness of our leadership, and the service of our interests and ideals,” Rubio said during a Brookings Institution panel in 2012.
Rubio indicated on Feb. 3 that no decision had been made about whether to close USAID or simply reorganize it with some functions moving to the State Department.
In her CNN interview, Power said that moving international development back under the umbrella of the State Department would mean losing expertise among USAID employees working on projects such as fighting malaria, building disaster-resistant infrastructure, and de-radicalizing communities.
Sen. Chris Coon (D-Del.), during a roundtable discussion on Feb. 12, noted that Republicans appear divided on whether to close or reform the agency. He asked panelists if there is still time to restore valued foreign aid programs and the credibility with international partners.
Cindy Dyer, a former USAID official, said, “I think we have a narrow but very closing window to save the institution and, more important, the capacities that protect U.S. national interest.”
Trump’s executive orders to pause foreign aid awards and to place the majority of USAID employees on administrative leave have been stayed by federal judges.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee will convene a hearing on USAID on Feb. 13.