In the world of international development, where the fight against poverty, disease, and hunger often takes center stage, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has recently found itself in the spotlight for some unexpected projects. From operas to ice-skating drag queens, the agency’s efforts to promote diversity, inclusion, and social change have sparked both applause and raised eyebrows. But behind the headlines lies a deeper question: Is USAID straying from its core mission, or is it simply adapting to a changing world?

Take, for instance, the $47,000 allocated for a transgender opera in Colombia. On the surface, it’s a story of empowerment—a chance to amplify the voices of a marginalized community through the arts. But critics argue that funding an opera, no matter how well-intentioned, feels out of step with the urgent needs of a country still grappling with poverty and inequality. “It’s beautiful, sure,” one skeptic remarked, “but is it bread or ballet?”

Then there’s the $32,000 spent on a transgender-themed comic book in Peru. The idea was to use storytelling to challenge stereotypes and foster understanding. Yet, as the pages of the comic were printed, so too were questions about whether this was the best use of aid dollars. In a region where many children lack access to basic education, some wondered if the money might have been better spent on textbooks rather than graphic novels.

But perhaps no project has captured the imagination—and the ire—of critics quite like the $10,000 grant for an ice-skating drag queen cabaret show focused on climate change. Yes, you read that right: drag queens on ice, twirling their way to environmental awareness. While the spectacle undoubtedly turned heads, skeptics questioned whether it would translate into tangible action on climate change. “It’s creative, I’ll give them that,” one observer quipped, “but will it save the glaciers?”

Not all of USAID’s controversial projects are quite so flashy. In Gaza, a planned $50 million initiative to distribute condoms was paused amid concerns that the materials could be repurposed for making weapons. It’s a stark reminder of the complexities of delivering aid in conflict zones, where even the most well-meaning efforts can be derailed by unintended consequences.

Meanwhile, in Serbia, USAID invested $1.5 million in workplace diversity and inclusion programs. The goal was noble: to combat discrimination and promote equity in Serbian businesses. But in a country where economic instability remains a pressing issue, some have questioned whether this was the most urgent use of funds. “Diversity matters,” one local activist acknowledged, “but so does putting food on the table.”

In Guatemala, USAID’s $2 million allocation for gender transition surgeries and LGBT activism has sparked a heated debate. Supporters see it as a bold step toward equality, while critics argue that the money could have been better spent on broader poverty alleviation efforts. “It’s not that these issues don’t matter,” one development expert noted, “but when you’re choosing between life-saving surgeries and gender-affirming ones, the stakes are high.”

Even USAID’s more traditional projects haven’t been immune to controversy. A $9 million aid package intended for Syrian civilians was allegedly diverted to combatant groups, including those linked to Al Qaeda. The scandal led to charges against Mohammad Abdullah, the head of a nongovernmental organization involved, highlighting severe lapses in oversight.

And then there are the projects that seem to defy categorization altogether. A $70,000 DEI-themed musical in Ireland? A $7.9 million program to teach Sri Lankan journalists about “binary-gendered language”? These initiatives, while well-intentioned, have left many scratching their heads. “I’m all for inclusion,” one journalist remarked, “but is this really what aid dollars are for?”

Even USAID’s funding of media outlets like Politico—reportedly totaling $34.3 million across various federal agencies—has drawn scrutiny. While the goal may have been to support independent journalism, critics worry about the potential for blurred lines between aid and influence.

The Team Behind the Scrutiny

The scrutiny of these projects came under the leadership of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a team formed during the Trump administration with the mandate to reduce government waste. Musk, known for his business prowess and innovative thinking, brought his analytical approach to federal spending, particularly targeting USAID.   Elon Musk: As the head of DOGE, Musk was instrumental in initiating the review of USAID, driven by his reputation for efficiency and a no-nonsense approach to government operations. His involvement was publicized through an audio message on X, where he announced the process to shut down USAID, supported by then-President Donald Trump.

•  
• Trump Administration: The initiative was part of a broader push by the Trump administration to critique and reform federal agencies perceived as inefficient. President Trump himself has been vocal about USAID's mismanagement, with tweets like "Billions of Dollars were wasted on Politico and other corrupt propaganda outlets" reflecting his stance.
• Marco Rubio: Serving as the acting director for USAID during this period, Rubio was tasked with overseeing the review and potential reorganization of the agency, aiming to align its operations more closely with U.S. foreign policy objectives.
• Pete Marocco: A State Department official, Marocco was involved in drafting directives related to the foreign aid freeze, ensuring that the actions taken by DOGE were legally grounded, although the approach taken was highly contentious.
• Security Concerns: The team's aggressive approach included accessing classified information at USAID without proper clearance, leading to two USAID security officials being placed on administrative leave for attempting to enforce security protocols. This action underscored the tension between the need for oversight and the importance of security clearance procedures.

the balancing act.

At its heart, the debate over USAID’s unconventional projects is a debate about priorities. In a world where the needs are vast and the resources are limited, every dollar spent on an opera or a comic book is a dollar not spent on vaccines, schools, or clean water. Yet, as societies evolve, so too do the challenges they face. Issues like discrimination, climate change, and gender equality are increasingly seen as integral to the broader development agenda.

The question, then, is not whether these issues matter—they clearly do—but how best to address them. Can an ice-skating drag queen really change the world? Maybe not. But perhaps, in its own way, it can spark a conversation that leads to something greater.

As USAID navigates this complex landscape, it must walk a fine line between innovation and accountability, between creativity and practicality. After all, development is not just about building roads and hospitals; it’s about building a better world. And sometimes, that world might just include a transgender opera or a climate-themed cabaret.

But as the critics remind us, it’s a delicate dance—one that requires careful steps to ensure that no one is left behind.