I never imagined that the first major conflict for the Trump administration would zero in on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Looking back, though, it totally fits. USAID finds itself caught at the intersection where the classic conservative criticism of government spending meets the populist distrust of professional-class ideals. Essentially, it’s two fights bundled into one.
Traditionally, conservative critics argue that government spending is often riddled with waste, fraud, and misuse. Foreign aid gets a particularly bad rap because the money isn’t seen as benefiting American taxpayers directly, and it’s perceived as easy pickings for corruption when funneled into countries with questionable governance that could divert the funds for their own gain.
On the populist side, the argument shifts to government being dominated by ideological progressives. These folks view seemingly neutral government initiatives as vehicles for pushing social liberalism and so-called “woke” agendas. Given that a lot of USAID’s mission is culturally driven, aiming to uphold American values and fund idea-centered projects, it’s an inviting target for such criticism.
While these populist criticisms predate the Trump era, having been voiced since the Cold War and the war on terror, they’ve really gained strength since Obama’s presidency. There’s no denying that cultural shifts during this time have permeated the foundations, philanthropies, and academia that tie into government work.
Liberals who lament the right’s opposition to foreign aid need to acknowledge this shift. When figures like Elon Musk and certain Republicans spotlight examples of ideological shifts, such as grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion or LGBTQ+ issues, they’re pointing to a broader transformation. Institutions that were once only slightly liberal or claimed to be neutral have leaned noticeably left, becoming more overtly ideological. This trend is not only visible in foreign aid but also in scientific grants and similar areas, hinting at future conflicts.
This evolution poses a unique challenge for USAID, intended as a global ambassador of American values. If American principles are equated with progressive values, it’s not shocking that conservatives start to doubt the agency’s mission. Try to enforce a radical change, and don’t be stunned if you face a backlash.
But those celebrating this backlash, the “triumphant Thermidorians,” face their own challenges. The first is the tendency of populists to assume not just that government agencies are swayed by progressive ideas but that they actually birthed those ideas. They think you can cut off funds to the liberal professional class by tracing dollars back to USAID. Elon Musk has alluded to such theories himself.
That’s a misunderstanding, and it ties into a broader shift in right-wing discourse—veering from criticizing how progressivism has skewed American influence to questioning the very premise of U.S. efforts to shape global affairs.
While it’s true that foreign aid programs have flaws, the argument against them being a significant drain on the budget is overblown. The modest sums we allocate to humanitarian causes hardly constitute major fiscal waste, and the benefits often justify the expense.
Some benefits are moral in nature. Vice President JD Vance sparked a lively discussion by highlighting the “ordo amoris,” the order of love that emphasizes prioritizing our communities over far-flung needs. While this is a valid critique against certain liberal policies, such as allowing questionable asylum claims to burden social services meant for citizens, funding foreign aid aligns well with what a wealthy superpower’s moral hierarchy should be.
There are strategic advantages, too. As long as the U.S. holds global sway and maintains an imperial presence, it’s in our interest to be seen in a kinder light compared to rivals like China and Russia. Ideological pressures may complicate charitable efforts, but some initiatives like malaria nets and HIV prevention remain prudent investments.
Officially, the Trump administration aims to refocus its foreign aid on humanitarianism. Yet there’s ongoing debate on the right about whether Trump’s foreign policy should recalibrate the American empire using measured steps to maintain dominance or if it should pull back to a North American boundary—more reserved, but not entirely isolationist.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, currently overseeing USAID, seems to favor the first approach—adjusting rather than retreating. However, how he manages America’s humanitarian efforts will demonstrate whether this recalibration is the chosen Trump strategy or if there’s a shift towards letting our global influence wane.
Ross Douthat, a columnist for The New York Times since 2009, authored the book “The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery.”
