The Washington, D.C. circuit is buzzing. The establishment is punching back.
Because Congress is exploding into chaos after the Trump admin’s latest executive moves.
Lawmakers Clash Over Shuttering of USAID at House Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
During a heated House Oversight subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, experts and lawmakers presented sharply divided views on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), particularly following the recent closure of its operations by the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The discussion centered around allegations of corruption within the agency and its role in global humanitarian efforts.
Democratic members of the Subcommittee on Delivery on Government Efficiency strongly criticized the shutdown of USAID’s operations, claiming that it has politicized and endangered essential humanitarian work across the globe. According to Democrats, the decision to close USAID is not only politically motivated but also poses a serious risk to the agency’s capacity to address pressing global needs.
Republicans, on the other hand, argued that USAID’s operations had long been marred by politicization, necessitating either substantial reforms or, in some cases, its complete abolition. They suggested that foreign aid should be placed under the authority of the U.S. State Department, which they believe would lead to more strategic and effective outcomes.
USAID has faced scrutiny in recent years for its funding of various initiatives, including diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, the promotion of electric vehicles, contraception, LGBTQ+ activism, and, controversially, support for armed groups identified as terrorist organizations. These concerns were highlighted in a report by The Center Square, which pointed to these areas of criticism as key sources of frustration for critics.
Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., the ranking member of the subcommittee, addressed the Republican accusations of waste, emphasizing that such claims were largely a matter of perspective. “You can’t just call something waste, fraud, and abuse, because you disagree with it,” she stated.
Conversely, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, argued that foreign aid should be based on a “rational conception of the way the world actually is” rather than the beliefs of what he called “leftist, secular bureaucrats” at USAID. He expressed concerns that USAID’s focus on issues like transgender rights and other progressive social agendas alienates the U.S. from more traditional cultures, which he believes undermines American interests abroad.
Max Primorac, a former senior program vetting officer at USAID, echoed these concerns, suggesting that current foreign aid practices do more to harm U.S. national interests than advance them. “USAID and the State Department used foreign aid as a global platform to push radical and even obscene ideas,” Primorac argued. “Foreign aid should be a tool to advance our national security interests. In the past, it did. Today, it does not.”
Primorac pointed to the Biden administration’s global green energy agenda, which he claimed pushed impoverished African countries to seek energy solutions from China, a nation with more favorable policies on fossil fuels, rather than the U.S.
He also accused activists and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of lobbying against efforts to increase transparency within USAID. Gregg Roman, Executive Director of the Middle East Forum, supported Primorac’s claims, revealing that USAID had essentially created a self-funding external private lobby. This lobby, Roman argued, then advocates for increased funding for the agency in Congress. He pointed to the failed passage of H.R. 160 in the 118th Congress, a bill that sought to improve transparency in USAID’s overseas operations and prevent the agency’s funds from supporting terrorist organizations.
Roman also raised concerns about the lack of oversight and transparency in USAID’s operations, citing a troubling example in Gaza. He reported that 90% of U.S. aid sent to Gaza ended up in areas controlled by Hamas. “I think there’s a gap in vetting and enforcement, allowing funds to move both directly and indirectly to extremist-linked groups,” Roman said, adding that it is essential to have traceable pipelines for all U.S. government funds.
Despite these criticisms, Democrats on the committee emphasized that USAID’s budget constitutes a mere 1% of the federal budget, with the real danger being how the agency’s closure has disrupted essential humanitarian programs. Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, highlighted reports from food warehouse operators in Sudan and Ethiopia, who said they could not distribute food due to the halt in USAID’s operations.
Noam Unger, a witness from the Center for Strategic and International Studies with extensive experience at USAID, also weighed in on the debate. Unger argued that the president’s actions to restrict USAID operations would ultimately weaken the U.S.’s global influence. He likened the administration’s moves to “unilaterally disarming” amid increasing global competition for international partnerships. “Throwing away our toolbox does not make us safer or well-positioned to influence the world,” Unger concluded.
Trump administration officials and allies, however, maintain that the USAID agency is way too far gone to be “redeemed” in any real and viable way. Surveys suggest the majority of Americans are aligned with Donald Trump on making these vast federal agency cuts to root out fraud and cut down on waste.
The Federalist Wire will keep you updated on any major news on USAID and The Trump administration.
