USAID is in trouble. If you didn’t know, USAID (United States Agency for International Development) is the foreign aid, humanitarian aid, and development arm of the U.S. government. The fact that the aid it distributes doesn’t add to a country’s debt makes a huge difference to countries in crisis.

But that money isn’t coming in anymore because U.S. President Donald Trump and his DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) buddy Elon Musk want to shut down USAID.

Why, you might ask?

They believe that USAID is wasting funds while promoting ideas that are against American interests. They believe it is a “criminal organization” run by “a bunch of radical lunatics” and that it “needs to die.” They argue that USAID is acting like a global aid agency, detached from national interests, and is wasting taxpayer money. But here’s the thing. Not all of these reasons hold up under scrutiny. Some of the so-called “evidence” may actually be due to issues beyond USAID’s control.

For example, consider the myth that the agency spends too much, too wastefully, and that foreign aid is unpopular.

The truth is partly a mix of yes and a big no.

First, spending. Yes, the U.S. is the world’s largest donor, and USAID distributes about 60% of its foreign aid. But in 2023, USAID’s spending was less than 1% of the total U.S. federal budget (government spending). Rich countries are expected to provide 0.7% of their GDP to developing countries in foreign aid. While the U.S. is not part of this commitment, its total foreign aid, if we use it as a benchmark, is less than 0.2% of its GDP. That’s not much.

Now, we come to the wasteful spending part. This argument probably stems from the fact that some USAID funds go to governments in developing countries, and some of them are corrupt. But between 2015 and 2022, less than 5% of its budget went directly to foreign governments. Most aid flows through private channels, such as NGOs, community groups, businesses, universities, and international organizations, to ensure it reaches the right people (not the authorities).

And that makes a difference. Since 2000, extreme poverty has fallen from 36% to 9% globally, maternal mortality has fallen by 34%, and death rates have fallen faster in areas supported by USAID than elsewhere.

As for the unpopularity of aid, this perception may be due to the fact that less than 5% of USAID’s budget goes to core economic growth programs, which may explain the frustration. Some countries feel like they are receiving donations rather than real partnerships. Many leaders say they want trade, not just aid. So perhaps the problem is not that foreign aid is unpopular. USAID needs to prioritize economic growth over aid.

Then there are those who say that USAID is a criminal organization. You’ve probably heard that it funds biological weapons research (including COVID-19) or even supports Syrian terrorists. But to see if the claims are valid, you need to dig deeper and understand how USAID actually works.

Look, this isn’t like USAID just cut a check and walked away for some reason. It operates through civil servants, contract workers, and NGOs in the field. Some work as full-time employees, without federal privileges. And they’re far more numerous than the permanent civil servants and foreign service officers who typically work for a branch of the U.S. government. While this unusual structure makes sense because it allows for global reach, it also leaves room for abuse.

As in the case of Syria, USAID provided money to feed refugees. But an NGO agent embezzled about 10 percent of it over four years and diverted it to a group linked to al-Qaeda. But it’s not like USAID turned a blind eye. It promptly shut down the program after it was discovered.

So does this make USAID a terrorist organization? No, it’s not. The problem is its oversight, not its purpose. Instead of calling for its closure, perhaps the focus should be on fixing the cracks in its system.

Because, you see, shutting down USAID isn’t just about cutting foreign aid. It goes against the very reason it was created in the first place. (I’ll explain why in a moment.)

This brings us to the myth that USAID is a global aid agency that doesn’t align with America’s interests. Sure, it provides aid, but that’s not the whole story.

The idea of ​​international development assistance began after World War II, when war-torn areas, especially in Europe, needed help to rebuild. But this wasn’t pure aid. It was a strategic move. By reducing poverty and increasing production, the United States was actually creating future markets for its own goods.

Then in 1961, President John F. Kennedy formalized this effort by establishing USAID as an independent agency. At the time (1945-1991), the United States and the Soviet Union (a coalition of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia) were fighting for global influence. That’s when the United States helped poor countries so they wouldn’t turn to the Soviet Union.

Now, even though the Soviet Union is gone today, the power struggle continues. Russia and China are still trying to gain global influence. For example, China spent billions on roads, railroads, and energy projects in Africa in exchange for access to valuable minerals. So if USAID closes down, it won’t just be philanthropy that stops. It’s also an open invitation for the United States’ biggest rivals to step in, do heroics, and gain influence over economically weaker countries.

So yes, these claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Some are exaggerated, some are myths, and some have more to do with politics than reality.

But what about the claim that USAID is run by madmen? Foreign aid has long been seen as a Democrat-backed initiative. After all, President Kennedy, a Democrat, created USAID. But Trump, a Republican, didn’t like it very much. So maybe that’s where some of the backlash comes from.

But shutting down USAID isn’t that simple. Even with a freeze on approved aid, actually eliminating it would require Congress (the U.S. House) to vote and change the law. Withdrawing funds approved by Congress is a difficult move. It could even be unconstitutional and lead to a potential Supreme Court battle.

Could this change Trump’s or Musk’s stance? Who knows. They may have changed their minds by the time you read this, making the whole story pointless.