US ally accuses Biden admin of using USAID as a ‘tool to interfere with domestic issues’

Introduction

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has found itself at the center of a heated debate under President Donald Trump’s second administration. The agency, traditionally a key player in U.S. foreign aid efforts, is now facing significant spending cuts as part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to streamline government operations and reduce waste. This shift has drawn strong reactions from both allies and adversaries on the global stage, highlighting the complex and often controversial nature of U.S. foreign aid policies.

At the helm of this cost-cutting initiative is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by none other than Elon Musk. DOGE’s scrutiny of USAID has sent shockwaves through the international community, with critics accusing the agency of mismanagement, corruption, and even political bias. While some view these cuts as a necessary step toward accountability, others fear that they could undermine critical development projects and destabilize already fragile regions.

International Reactions and Criticisms

The criticism of USAID is not limited to domestic circles. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó has been outspoken in his disapproval of the agency’s practices under the previous Biden administration. In an interview with Fox News Digital at the United Nations, Szijjártó acknowledged that while he does not wish to interfere in U.S. domestic affairs, he has strong opinions about USAID’s approach. He accused the agency of pushing a liberal, progressive agenda that often clashed with the values and interests of nations like Hungary.

Szijjártó emphasized that his country was not willing to compromise its national interests or adopt what he described as a “non-liberal, patriotic, conservative approach.” He also criticized USAID for funding programs that he deemed alien to the cultural and heritage contexts of the countries they were intended to assist. Szijjártó expressed support for the 90-day payment revision period imposed on USAID, suggesting that such measures were long overdue.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close ally of Trump, has also weighed in on the issue. Orbán accused USAID of funding media outlets like Politico, which he claimed were used to demonize patriotic and conservative political movements. He echoed Trump’s sentiments, describing the situation as “too big and too dirty to hide.” These statements reflect a broader perception among some international leaders that USAID has been used as a tool for advancing specific political ideologies rather than purely humanitarian goals.

White House Campaign Against Waste and Abuse

The White House has taken a proactive stance in highlighting what it describes as “waste and abuse” within USAID. In a recent press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that over $8 million in taxpayer dollars had been funneled to Politico, a revelation that sparked controversy. While Politico denied being a beneficiary of government programs, the incident has fueled ongoing debates about the transparency and accountability of U.S. foreign aid.

DOGE, under Musk’s leadership, has been instrumental in identifying and exposing what it claims are egregious examples of mismanagement within USAID. The White House has released a list of questionable expenditures, including $6 million allocated for tourism projects in Egypt, $1.5 million for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in Serbian workplaces, and $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia. Perhaps the most contentious allegation, however, is that USAID funds have been used to support irrigation canals, farming equipment, and fertilizer in Afghanistan, inadvertently aiding the Taliban and contributing to the country’s booming poppy cultivation and heroin production.

These revelations have led to calls for greater oversight and accountability within USAID. The White House has emphasized that these examples are part of a larger pattern of waste and abuse, and has vowed to put an end to such practices under Trump’s leadership.

Elon Musk and the Conservative Backlash Against USAID

Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and head of DOGE, has been a vocal critic of USAID, describing the agency as a “viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America.” This statement encapsulates the broader conservative narrative that USAID has become a tool for advancing progressive ideologies and undermining traditional American values.

Musk’s involvement in the effort to reform USAID has added a high-profile dimension to the debate, drawing attention to what many conservatives see as a deeply entrenched bureaucracy in need of radical overhaul. His leadership of DOGE has also brought a businesslike approach to government operations, with a focus on efficiency, cost-cutting, and accountability.

While Musk’s critics argue that his approach may neglect the complexities of international development and the delicate balance of geopolitical relationships, his supporters see him as a much-needed disruptor in a system they believe has become complacent and corrupt.

Examples of Waste and the Call for Reform

The White House’s list of questionable expenditures within USAID has provided fodder for critics who argue that the agency has strayed far from its original mission of providing humanitarian assistance. The examples cited range from the arguably frivolous to the potentially dangerous, highlighting what many see as a systemic problem within the agency.

For instance, the allocation of $6 million for tourism in Egypt raises questions about the prioritization of resources, especially when compared to more pressing development needs in other regions. Similarly, the $1.5 million spent on DEI programs in Serbia has been criticized as an example of cultural imperialism, where Western values are imposed on societies with very different cultural and historical contexts.

Perhaps the most concerning allegation, however, is that USAID funds have inadvertently supported the Taliban’s heroin production in Afghanistan. This not only undermines the U.S. government’s efforts to combat drug trafficking but also raises serious ethical questions about the unintended consequences of foreign aid.

Conclusion

The debate over USAID’s future under the Trump administration reflects deeper divisions over the role of U.S. foreign aid in a rapidly changing world. While some see the agency as a vital instrument of American influence and compassion, others view it as a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy in need of radical reform.

The Trump administration’s efforts to streamline USAID and eliminate waste have drawn both praise and criticism, with international allies and adversaries alike taking notice. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the future of U.S. foreign aid will be shaped by the balancing act between accountability and compassion, efficiency and empathy. Whether the Trump administration’s approach will achieve its goals without undermining the core mission of USAID remains to be seen.