It can be easy to think that the Trump administration’s high-pressure tactics against USAID are simply a part of the general chaotic onslaught of institutional destruction being seen since January 20. Firing, or threatening to fire, or encouraging staff to resign feeds into the narratives of the radical downsizing of a “wasteful” government. And talking about slashing “foreign aid” is similarly red meat to a disempowered base that either has been told that government is always predatory, as well as those more empowered supporters who recognize that good government provides guardrails to their own ambitions. But it’s laughable to think that non-military foreign aid, which comprises less than one percent of federal spending, would make any difference to federal budget deficits that reflect the inability of Congress to have honest conversations about the social contract people want and the taxes needed to pay for it.
The reason this fairly wonky agency is being targeted is actually more troubling. This came to me when I heard that as a part of the broader remodeling and removal of photos of individuals (e.g., Gen. Mark Milley), that pictures from USAID illustrating the targets of USAID projects overseas, such as agricultural scenes or community events, have been taken off the walls. Anyone in this line of work is familiar with these framed photos gracing the walls of embassies, of government buildings, and of the private/non-profit offices that serve as think tanks and contracting agencies. My sense is that these photos serve three purposes: a visual reminder of investments made and work done; a reminder of the human beings on the receiving end of support and collaboration and the dignity they deserve; and a gentle encouraging nod at the idealistic people who got into this line of work in the first place. Trust me when I say the people who go into this work were not deciding between development vs. day trading, or humanitarian agency vs. hedge fund firm.
The attack on USAID is happening because the work they do and the aims they promote are in the service of the promotion of human development rights-based systems grounded in the rule of law, good governance, whole-of-society public health, and citizen engagement – all of which are virtues and practices the new American regime does not want to support abroad, and wants to hobble at home.
Over the past decade or so I have often considered that the programs being supported by USAID around the world are increasingly and at times desperately needed in communities across the United States as well. My parents living in Western New York have far fewer non-Facebook alternatives for local news coverage then I often see in parts of the Western Balkans where USAID and other funds often specifically support investigative journalism and local bottom-up reporting. Several years ago, when the topic of countering violent extremism became a programmatic panic among many different donors, American and otherwise, some of the more reasonable programs were those that focused on the whole-of-society approach to addressing the factors that lead people to be attracted to extremist groups in the first place. These often included ensuring that communities had sufficient facilities and activities for young people in general and so that they would not be radicalized online while sitting at home being bored. Seeing support for youth centers that young people could easily walk to after school or on the weekends, I often thought that such public space, freely available, seems too often to have been allowed to disappear in communities across the United States.
Other common programs include ensuring that women have access to microfinance so they can support and educate their families, something that is especially important in societies torn apart by violence that has often severely incapacitated the men in that society. Or initiatives to support and implement legislation ensuring that national or religious minorities are not treated as second-class citizens or worse. Or supporting the development of independent government institutions and institutional watchdogs, including oversight agencies, inspectors, and whistleblower protection… all commonly seen as guardrails necessary for healthy democratic functioning.
At the same time, as we began to see American political dynamics become increasingly sensational and tribal and less based on practical issues that affect people’s lives, I knew people who were working to, for example, support young political party members in other countries to develop ideas for what policy changes they would like to see. I also remember a friend organizing a televised debate to provide a forum for candidates to have to answer real questions rather than engage in soundbite bombast.
Did every one of these programs result and sweeping systematic and democratic change? Of course not. (Similarly, think of how many private investments fail to hit the jackpot or even end up in bankruptcy.) Development and civil rights in the United States has been a generational endeavor. But all of the support programs plant seeds and increase the likelihood that people will recognize that they want to live in a system that works for them and not just for elite cadres. Even more, these investments have been a low-cost way of sending a signal to the world that the American people think that every human being has dignity. And while processes related to the monitoring, evaluation and learning happening within these programs and among similar programs being implemented globally still require continual improvement, there is a far greater willingness to ask whether programs are making an impact, and in particular to ask the people in the country or community itself what is necessary to even more effectively support long-term growth and progress. (It’s worth noting that the link to USAID’s Learning Lab web page was not accessible at the time of this writing, nor were other links to programs illustrating the examples noted above.)
Even Republican administrations had seen value in this because of the post-Cold War framework of the democratic peace and comprehensive security. The first idea posits that democratic countries will always be safer and wealthier if they exist in a system in which there are more democratic countries. The second idea posits that democratic systems will be less likely to engage in transactional and values-free bully politics that could end in violence, war or larger-scale catastrophe. Together, they underlie the presumption that freer societies will be more prosperous, and therefore better for the US. Yet now, the chaotic cessation of so much programming leaves the field even more wide open for geopolitical players like China, which is already stepping in to fill the gaps.
The few within the administration who might read this would immediately claim that I and others like me are suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome”. That all they are planning is, for example, to streamline USAID and fold it back into the State Department itself. However, there is a reason that USAID has been an independent agency. That independence helps to protect it (not fully, but partially) from the partisan vicissitudes of changing administrations that affect foreign policy and state department dynamics, and therefore enables USAID engagement on the ground around the world to ensure a long-term perspective and investment to enhance the likelihood of success of return on that investment. The extent to which many development and democracy promotion projects support bottom-up voices is a necessary counterpart to formal diplomatic efforts and relationships that prioritize an often tiny number of elites.
It was disappointing to hear Democratic strategists say that fighting for USAID is not worth it politically, and is a “trap.” They have failed to learn from the democratic decline of other countries, and ignoring the anti-democratic, authoritarian playbook from which we can learn is irresponsible. The fact that a misinformation machine has been turned on to spread outrageous claims about USAID and its work is itself from this playbook. It is not difficult to hear echoes of the demonization of George Soros and his Open Society Foundation which has been common in the erosion of governance norms and rights elsewhere. Bogeymen are needed to blame, scapegoat and distract.
But again, the reason this is happening so soon in the administration is based not solely on the new administration’s interest in global values-free transactional politics that will make a lucky few wealthy while eroding norms that have broadly sustained peace and supported broader wealth creation. It is because they are self-interested and cynical enough to know that if they continue to allow such programs to continue elsewhere, Americans may begin to ask why there are not similar programs at home – in support of local independent media, community and youth centers, institutional checks on the abuse of power, and more. Instead, we are seeing the rollback of past democratic successes in the US, from FDR’s New Deal that empowered rural communities, labor unions and the previously marginalized, to LBJ’s Great Society. (The fact that USAID was established in 1961 during the Kennedy administration at a time of serious geopolitical competition in addition makes it a target of those who want to eliminate such vestiges of strategic idealism.) The Trump administration needs to strangle US-supported democratic empowerment and development globally to ensure that domestic sparks of resistance and questions about the decades-long impact of the starving of the commons and policies that enable rampant inequality in the US can be squashed as well.
Valery Perry has worked in the Western Balkans for 25 years, including as a freelancer on several good governance and democracy support initiatives funded by USAID or other US foreign aid.