Trump dosn't want another war but his Rhetoric Could Stoke Many

 

Reforming Foreign Aid: Balancing Generosity with Accountability

By Wahab Raofi

Cutting funding for USAID undermines the nation's global image. However, increasing oversight and accountability can strengthen its effectiveness.

 

The phrase "Can I help you?" is a cultural symbol of American generosity, reflecting the nation’s goodwill and reinforcing its leadership on the world stage. This generosity earns the U.S. admiration from allies and respect from rivals. However, foreign aid is increasingly facing scrutiny and calls for reform.

 In September 2013, Mike Hopkins, in his essay Pride in The USA, wrote, "In the midst of this crisis, who is helping? Who is on the scene with the necessities of life? Whether it is a refugee crisis in Europe, an earthquake in Haiti, or a volcano in Peru, it is the people of the United States of America who arrive on site, 'the firstest with the most.'

 America has played a pivotal role in global reconstruction and stability, notably aiding Europe’s recovery after World War II through the Marshall Plan. It has also provided refuge to displaced populations, built critical infrastructure, fought hunger and disease worldwide, and fostered diplomatic relations that extend American influence.

The United States stands tall not only due to its military strength, technological advancements, and esteemed institutions but also because of its effective use of soft power, which helps win the hearts and minds of people worldwide.

Political scientist Joseph Nye coined the term "soft power" in 1990 to denote "the ability to affect others by attraction and persuasion rather than just coercion and payment." Long before this capability had a name, it was a key part of America’s power projection. Writing in The Washington Post, Max Boot noted, "Soft power helps to explain why the United States has military bases in at least 80 countries, why the dollar has become the international reserve currency, and why English has become the global language of business and diplomacy."

But over the course of less than two weeks, the Trump administration largely dismantled the work of a 10,000-person, $40 billion foreign-assistance agency,( along with the thousands of people in nonprofits and other groups that work Trump’s decision to suspend the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) triggered widespread backlash both in the U.S. media and internationally.. Critics argue that halting assistance from USAID creates an opportunity for China and Russia to expand their influence. Former senior USAID official George Ingram told NBC News, "Concerns are growing in Washington that temporarily halting assistance from the U.S. Agency for International Development opens up a window for China and Russia."

However, there is a harsh reality to U.S. aid—much of it is often wasteful and unproductive. It needs complete overhaul to become more efficient and effective, resembling a well-structured business transaction rather than unchecked spending. USAID, established in 1961 by president John F Kenedy to manage disease outbreaks, reduce child mortality, and implement various aid programs,  

However, over time, the organization has become mired in excessive bureaucracy. limiting its efficiency and accountability. Inan executive order on January 20, Trump announced a 90-day pause in most foreign aid, arguing that the "foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and, in many cases, are antithetical to American values." The administration pointed to examples of U.S. tax dollars funding controversial initiatives that did not directly serve American interests. Trump said USAID had “been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we’re getting them out”.. His point holds merit.

 During my time in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2020, working as a civilian contractor for NATO forces, I witnessed widespread mismanagement and the bureaucratic inefficiency of U.S. aid programs—USAID being a prime example. The United States poured nearly trillions dollars into Afghanistan, funding both military operations and various nation-building projects, such as constructing roads, clinics, and schools, as well as promoting women's rights. However, after two decades, Afghanistan was no better off than it had been when the U.S. first intervened in 2001. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) repeatedly reported cases of fraud, mismanagement, and waste of American taxpayer money, yet these warnings fell on deaf ears among U.S. officials. Among Afghans, it became a common joke that USAID existed merely to issue checks, with little oversight or tangible impact.

There is a crucial difference between generosity and waste—one that is not aligned with good governance and should not be tolerated merely for the sake of appearing benevolent. Dismantling USAID is not a viable option; the U.S. must continue leveraging its soft power as it has done for decades. However, streamlining the organization to maximize efficiency is essential. Stronger oversight, reduced bureaucracy, and measurable impact assessments must be prioritized to ensure that aid serves both U.S. strategic interests and humanitarian goals. Foreign aid should reflect a modernized approach to soft power—one that maximizes impact while minimizing waste. Reform, not elimination, is the best course forward.