USAID and its Crony Humanitarianism

One may or may not agree with the Trump Administration’s decision to effectively handcuff the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). But the allegations against USAID for serving all sorts of ‘liberal’ causes in the guise of providing financial assistance to countries and NGOs through American taxpayers’ money, have merit. To that extent, there was an urgent need to restrain the agency’s functioning—and it has happened.

The USAID came into existence after the Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act in 1961, and President John F. Kennedy thereafter issued an executive order for the agency’s creation. The main purpose of the new body was to channel US financial assistance to foreign entities with the purpose of empowering societies through various interventions in the areas of health, education etc.

The initiative also factored in the geopolitical considerations of the time; the US was eager to counter the influence of the Soviet Union, and making countries indebted to the Americans for their financial help was a good way to win them over. Since the USAID was an integral part of the US government’s foreign policy, it was mandated to operate under the supervision of the President, the Secretary of State and the National Security Council.

Over the decades, however, the USAID, flush with massive amounts of funds—some accounts say its budget was close to $50 billion—began to strike partnerships with various organisations with questionable reputations. These outfits had their own dubious agendas and were known to interfere in and influence (mostly through arm-twisting) the internal policies of foreign, sovereign governments. Along the way, the USAID turned into a sort of an oligarch, with successive US governments looking the other way or tacitly condoning its activities, because they had themselves given approvals for those actions as part of their foreign relations strategy. A more charitable explanation would be that the government had created a monster which turned too powerful to be kept in leash.

It was perhaps in acknowledgement of the USAID’s audacious adventures that President Donald Trump recently remarked that the agency “had been run by a bunch of radical lunatics…” Elon Musk, his chief point-man to reform governance structures, called the USAID a “criminal organisation” in one of his social media posts, and added that it was “time for it to die”. He also said, in a direct attack on its penchant to be meddlesome, “It is a machine for interfering in internal affairs, it is a mechanism for changing regimes, political order, state structure”. The choice of words may be harsh but they reflect a level of reality.

Incidentally, while one Kennedy signed an order to create the USAID for ostensibly noble purposes, another Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who became Trump’s pick to head the Health and Human Services, had revealed in 2024 how the agency was used to engineer protests and rebellions in other countries to dismantle incumbent governments. He alleged that the USAID had financed the 2014 revolution in Ukraine that led to the outer of the then democratically-elected President. He further charged that, as part of the conspiracy, a US State Department official had even been selecting members of the cabinet of the new Ukrainian government!

Also in 2024, a report in The Sunday Guardian, which it said was based on classified material, claimed that the International Republican Institute (IRI), funded by the USAID, had played a lead role in conspiring against the Sheikh Hasina government. This project, according to the newspaper, had been in operation from 2019, and since then the IRI had collaborated with various individuals and organisations to empower elements inside Bangladesh to rise in revolt against the Hasina government. Not surprisingly, the USAID was prompt in extending a multi-million-dollar aid to the interim dispensation in Bangladesh after Sheikh Hasina was ousted.

There are several other reports of USAID’s interference—with the reportedly active collaboration of agencies such as the CIA—in the internal affairs of other countries as well, including some Latin American nations. It becomes obvious that humanitarian financial assistance from the USAID came at a price, and often that price was the destabilisation of foreign governments. Back in 2012, Russia had expelled the agency on charges that it had been meddling in Russian internal politics and instigating rebellions against Moscow. A Russian foreign Ministry official had then said that the USAID was “anything but an aid, development and assistance agency”.

Eight years ago, a group of US Senators had demanded a thorough inquiry into the extent of the USAID’s relationship with billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundations (OSF). They said, “The time is ripe for such an in-depth investigation to ascertain the extent of USAID’s involvement with Soros, his OSF, or many of the other groups in his extensive network”.

The USAID’s activities with regard to India have also not been without controversies. The agency has proudly recorded its “partnership” with the Indian government and the Indian private sector in areas relating to health (eliminating preventable child and maternal deaths, tackling AIDS and tuberculosis etc.), preventing gender-based violence, providing safe drinking water and reading and learning among primary school children. It has also boasted of collaborating with the government of India to boost clean and green energy initiatives. But this is one side of the story.

The USAID had been deeply embedded in the country’s education and health sectors, persuading the authorities to follow the templates it deemed useful for Indians. This included a variety of so-called sex-education teachings, many of which revolted against the cultural and civilisational ethos of India. Interestingly, these teachings were objected to even in the ‘progressive’ US. Consider the example of USAID’s partnership with organisations led by Soros.

The Heritage Foundation, an American think tank, published a report exposing the nexus between Soros and the USAID. It claimed that the agency had found “an ideal partner in George Soros” to promote “radical agendas in several countries”. The report also said that the administration of President Barack Obama had “at times turned USAID into an instrument for promoting agendas that have failed to gain consensus acceptance within American society itself”. These agendas included transgender rights and same-sex marriage.

The Heritage Foundation report added that the agenda also encompassed “training foreign citizens in street activism, civic engagement and mobilization”. This was evident in the various street protests that were recently witnessed in India, such as those against the Citizenship Amendment Act and in favour of separatist and secessionist demands; other targeted countries also went through similar experiences.

The USAID had links with not just Soros-led outfits but also with the types of V-Dem and Freedom House (to which OCF has been a major fund giver). The antagonistic attitude of these organisations towards India in general and its incumbent government in particular, is well known.

Among the lamenters of the Trump Administration’s crackdown on USAID, are sections of the Indian and the global media. This goes to show how deeply the USAID and its ‘affiliates’ had penetrated the media, influencing it with their money power and patronage in other ways. Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) or Reporters Without Borders wailed: “Almost immediately after the freeze [on the USAID] went into effect, journalistic organizations around the world that receive American aid funding started reaching out to RSF expressing confusion, chaos, and uncertainty”. With media organisations receiving funds from the USAID and its collaborators, it is no wonder that they were serving the interests of the agency and its associates, rather than being objective commentators. This explains, largely, why countries such as India routinely received negative publicity.

(The paper is the author’s individual scholastic articulation. The author certifies that the article/paper is original in content, unpublished and it has not been submitted for publication/web upload elsewhere, and that the facts and figures quoted are duly referenced, as needed, and are believed to be correct). (The paper does not necessarily represent the organisational stance... More >>