Today’s guest column is by Cliff Smith, a lawyer and a former congressional staffer. He lives in Washington, D.C., where he works on national security related issues.

The headlines are ablaze with the Trump Administration putting thousands of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) workers on leave, and firing 1,600 of them. While there are many legal and political battles to be had (the Supreme Court just put the brakes on Trump’s freeze of USAID funds), it is clear that whatever is going to happen is going to fundamentally change the discussion over foreign aid for the foreseeable future.

I might be seen as someone welcoming this as a comeuppance. Investigating scandals involving USAID are a significant part of my professional history. Indeed, a number of scandals discussed at a Congressional hearing on USAID were scandals that myself and a former colleague uncovered. In essence, the hearing raised issues that at least four previous Congressional investigations into USAID malfeasance, as well as several Inspectors General investigations, that I’d advised and were based on scandals I helped to unearth.

But it is because of this fact, not in spite of it, that I’ve been shaking my head in disbelief and frustration as Elon Musk’s so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” announced that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was being fed to the “woodchipper.”

During the “Black Lives Matter” movement, which followed the horrifying murder of George Floyd by police officer Derek Chauvin, politicians and political activists took legitimate grievances and channeled them into an obviously foolish overreaction. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), the then the highest ranking African American in the House of Representatives, explained in late 2020 that the “Defund the Police” movement “(U)ndermined the (Black Lives Matter) movement, just as 'burn, baby, burn' destroyed our movement back in the ‘60s.”

DOGE’s “woodchipper” experiment is similar: an unworkable overreaction to a serious problem.

Anti-DOGE people have pointed out that a number of supposed scandals raised by DOGE were fake. This is true, but serious problems in USAID remain real. World Vision, one of the largest USAID grant recipients, and largest Christian charities, in the world, sent USAID funds directly to Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA) — a designated terrorist entity that funded Osama Bin Laden. Omar Al-Bashir, the former brutal dictator of Sudan, manipulated the process to ensure that entities loyal to him received USAID funds, rather than neutral actors.

Amazingly, once the facts about ISRA were discovered internally, the Treasury Department authorized another payment to ISRA to avoid World Vision getting kicked out of Sudan. Appeasing Bashir was more important than ceasing terror funding. Senior Obama Administration officials then proceeded, not to ratchet up vetting, but to try, unsuccessfully, to get ISRA removed from the terror designation list. The Senate Finance Committee, which investigated this scandal, found World Vision “borderline negligent” for failing to adequately vet its partners, and its Chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), actively opposed the appointment of Samantha Power to USAID Administrator due to her attempts to legitimize ISRA.

This was not the first time World Vision was caught up in a terror finance scandal. Their former Gaza director, Mohammad Halabi, sits in an Israeli prison for funneling tens of millions of dollars, some of which were US foreign aid, to Hamas.

More: USAID partnered with Jamal Trust Bank in Lebanon, right up to the point it collapsed after the Treasury Department designated it as a Hezbollah funder. The facts about Jamal Trust’s activities were an open secret. USAID also funded a group known as Helping Hands for Relief and Development (HHRD), which, in turn, had partnered with several terrorist organizations in Kashmir, a volatile flashpoint between India and Pakistan. Amazingly, USAID funded HHRD after Congress had raised red flags about HHRD’s terror partnerships. While this earned the ire of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, funding continued. This is not unique. A recent report by the Middle East Forum (full disclosure: my former employer) found over $100 million in dubious aid decisions over the years.

This kind of unwillingness to confront bad actors, continuous problems of partner vetting, and a culture that sees itself as above serious scrutiny, deserved to be addressed, just as did the concerns of a police culture that repeatedly seemed indifferent to the lives of innocent minorities.

But none of this make “defund”/“woodchipper” proposals any better.

During the “Defund the Police,” movement, some tried to substitute more sensible proposals, but were shouted down by the most extreme voices. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has tried to modify DOGE’s demolition derby approach, saying the State Department is “reorganizing,” and will “absorb certain bureaus, offices, and missions of USAID,” which is not inherently objectionable, but would require Congress. Trump is still demanding USAID be “shut down,” and the current headlines suggest he intends to keep trying.

However, the shock-actions taken by DOGE, funds frozen worldwide, staff locked out of their offices, mass firings, etc. may not hold up. Legal experts agree that many of the actions taken by DOGE are illegal. DOGE’s boosters love to point out that USAID was founded by executive order in the 60’s, claiming it could be shuttered the same way. But that ignores that it was codified as an independent agency by a Republican House and Senate in 1998. Any purported reform, without Congress, sits on a legally dubious foundation.

Foreign aid, defined more broadly than USAID alone, makes up about 1% of the federal budget. The real drivers of the debt are Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements. Any serious strategy aimed at fiscal reform will begin with these programs. Instead, USAID’s Inspector General, who has had successes in rooting out problems, was fired for pointing out that the current approach is counterproductive.

Also, International aid, implemented appropriately, is an important tool of statecraft. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (Ret.) recently explained how USAID programs were able to help win over local populations in Iraq during the “surge,” since he could offer assistance and stability that terrorist groups could not.

Additionally, the humanitarian benefits, and costs to inaction, can be staggering. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), while “affirm(ing) that there are aspects of our foreign aid programs that should be ended and others that could be reformed for greater effectiveness,” nonetheless that “this review and reform can be achieved without the wholesale disruption of the many programs that are working well and saving lives.”

One example is George W. Bush’s PEPFAR program. Aimed at stopping AIDS in Africa, it has saved 25 million lives. Prominent pro-lifers are panicked, writing a plea in the New York Times asking Trump to spare PEPFAR.

PEPFAR, and many of the programs mentioned by NAE, have also been a victory for America’s public image, countering endless amounts of Russian propaganda that seeks to paint America as a villain. Indeed, Russia has explicitly demonized American aid projects because they know they earn goodwill. Russian propaganda is echoing Musk’s comments that USAID is a “criminal” enterprise. Why wouldn’t they? USAID has done yeoman’s work in providing opposition to Russian propaganda in Ukraine by funding independent Ukrainian media outlets.

China is a larger issue. There is little dispute that, should U.S. assistance be hobbled, China will be more than happy to rush in. Michael Sobolik of the Hudson Institute and a former Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) staffer, said it best, “USAID was doing some highly questionable stuff that’s worthy of review. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Beijing is hoping we do exactly that.” He’s not wrong, a recent NPR report gives some specific examples of how China may exploit USAID’s absence. It is an uncomfortable fact to mention that Musk has referred to himself as “kind-of pro-China,” and his anti-foreign aid practices match up with that rhetoric.

The end result is this: this ill-conceived approach endangers lives, damages America’s international standing, helps America’s adversaries, does next to nothing to fix the budget, and sits on a legally dubious foundation. Anything accomplished by executive order could be undone by a future President with opposite views, and no real reform to USAID will be made law.

It is tough to tell people that they have a legitimate concern, but that a quick, emotionally satisfying solution goes too far, and won’t work. But that’s often the truth. America’s problems weren’t created quickly, and they won’t be fixed quickly. Don’t be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Share

Today’s guest column is by Cliff Smith, a lawyer and a former congressional staffer. He lives in Washington, D.C., where he works on national security related issues.

Veteran political reporter Juan Williams recently opined in a new book that we are in the midst of a second Civil Rights movement. He has reported on civil rights for decades and has written books about Civil Rights leaders like Thurgood Marshall. He’s worth taking seriously.

But Williams’ thesis raises a pitfall in our political discussions that should not go unexamined. Specifically, the traps that present themselves in making too close of comparisons to successful movements of the past.

If you are a Democrat, you’ve probably heard a lot about how the Kennedys and Lyndon Johnson were able to make huge strides in equality during the Civil Rights movement. If you are a Republican, you’ve probably heard a lot about how Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. There’s truth in both claims, and generations of political actors seek to apply the lessons learned to today’s challenges. This is inevitable, and largely a good thing.

But reality is messier than the stories partisans tell. Reagan took many indispensable actions in winning the Cold War, but it would not have been fought on favorable terms had it not been for Harry Truman, a Democrat, who began assistance to countries resisting the Soviet Union (USSR). Also, it is true that JFK and LBJ were instrumental in the Civil Rights cause, but Republicans in Congress gave a greater percentage of their votes to the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats did. Neither triumph is owned by one “side” alone.

Moreover, politics is not static.

Williams rightly points out that the new movement, “battles a behemoth of lingering racial inequalities left unresolved by the first movement,” and has made strides in calling attention to economic inequalities and police abuses that had received too little attention. But he warns that this movement “can thrive only so long as it adopts the strongest parts of what came before.”

That last part is tricky.

The horrifying injustices which led to the death of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor by police clearly called for a reckoning. But while soul-searching and reform is warranted, the “Defund the Police,” movement of 2020 not only went too far, but undermined the cause.

“John Lewis and I were very concerned when these slogans came out about 'defund the police,’” Representative Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said of himself and the late Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), his former colleague and a major Civil Rights hero who had died just months earlier. “We sat together on the House floor and talked about how that slogan... could undermine the (Black Lives Matter) movement, just as 'burn, baby, burn' destroyed our movement back in the ‘60s.”

This happened, in part, because popular discourse cloaked new policies and new movements in the glories of past achievements without deeper thought. Instead many sought to silence critiques as opposing advancement of the cause, or worse.

Thankfully, the “Defund the Police,” movement is dead, but there are other issues in the mix today that present challenges.

Yascha Mounk, a Professor at Johns Hopkins University, has written about the rise of what he calls the “identity synthesis,” an outgrowth of intellectual and political trends popularized by people like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. This synthesis is certainly in the mix of Williams’ second Civil Rights movement, and focus almost exclusively on power between racial identity groups. Mounk argues this synthesis is used by “many activists and politicians invoke their heritage as a justification for their political position,” leading to fruitless debates about the evils of “whiteness,” or who is the “authentic” voice of minority groups, rather than thoughtful deliberation on policies that helps minorities.

He’s not alone. Serious African American scholars such as Columbia University’s John McWhorter, are even harsher, “At a certain point,” some of those who focus on the contest between distinct identity groups want people to “stop using logic and you're just supposed to … believe,” that their methods will improve minorities lives. McWhorter strongly disagrees.

Both Mounk and McWhorter agree that seemingly neutral policies can be malicious, a key claim of what might popularly be called critical race theory, but say only a smart re-commitment to equality can make forward progress on combating racism. Kendi and DiAngelo, on the other hand, claim that good or “antiracist” discrimination, done in the name of the “right” identity group, is necessary to remedy bad or “racist” discrimination. If the latter are correct, a fundamental position of the original Civil Rights movement is no longer operative, and perhaps was always fictional.

The point is not to get into the nitty gritty of academic debates, but these issues are hotly debated, and will serve as a rudder for the current Civil Rights movement. It would be irrational, and dishonest, to accept such a serious amendment, like Kendi’s, to a fundamental position in the name of the original Civil Rights movement without serious reflection. Such reflection has not taken place.

Likewise, you can barely discuss foreign policy without hearing analogies to the Cold War and World War II. Ian Bremmer, the President of the Eurasia Group, recently said that that “we’re entering a uniquely dangerous period on par with the 1930s & early Cold War.”

China under the Chinese Communist Party clearly aims to expand its reach, and coerce countries into playing by its rules. The “no limits” partnership between China, Russia, and their close cooperation with Iran, recalls the World War 2 axis powers. Russia’s barbaric and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has destabilized any sort of order that prioritized national sovereignty and peace among the leading world powers. Bremmer’s on to something.

At the same time, the situation is very different from what presented itself prior to World War II, or during the Cold War. Rather than a great depression, the worldwide economy has, save for the brief covid downturn, thrived for 15+ years. Unlike being economically isolated, as the USSR was, the economies of China and America are deeply interlinked. While Russia and Iran are under heavy sanctions, they find many ways to evade them.

The goal concerning Hitler and Imperial Japan was made clear by President Franklin Roosevelt: unconditional surrender. Likewise, America beat the USSR in large part by bankrupting them in a fierce economic competition where it built more and better weapons than the USSR could afford. But can America and its allies force China to surrender, or bankrupt it while it is economically interlinked? It’s a unique challenge. What worked last time won’t work again.

Ironically, prominent skeptics of continuing to arm Ukraine, such as Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) argue us that we should focus on China and view Ukraine as a secondary issue that threatens to drain our resources from our first priority, China. Others, such as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the Taiwanese envoy to the US, argue that defeating Russia in Ukraine is necessary to deterring China’s axis. Both are invoking Cold War logic. Like civil rights, this debate cannot be swept aside by invoking America’s past victories. The divisions are too fundamental to be overlooked.

The lessons are simple, but not easy: don’t sign up for any policy or movement without close inspection. Claiming the mantle of past glories doesn’t give modern movements the same moral authority, and they don’t guarantee the same results.

Share