Republicans and Democrats exchanged vastly different opinions about the U.S. Agency for International Aid (USAID) in a pair of events on Capitol Hill over two days.
USAID was the subject of both a roundtable discussion convened by Democratic senators on Feb. 12 and a hearing held by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Congressman Brian Mast (R-Fla.), on Feb. 13.
Neither event produced official actions, but both aired the views of each party concerning the fate of the organization that has been the face of American foreign aid for 64 years.
On Jan. 28, Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed a waiver allowing lifesaving humanitarian assistance to continue. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the involuntary leave until Feb. 14, then extended it for an additional week on Feb. 13.
1. Both Parties Favor Foreign Aid as a Strategic Tool
Some Democrats fear that the administration’s action on USAID is a precursor to the elimination of foreign aid.“This is not about oversight. It’s not about reform. It’s about completely gutting foreign assistance itself,” Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) said in the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.
In both forums, Democrats said humanitarian aid and international development are vital tools for ensuring national security.
Republicans agreed but emphasized the need for foreign aid to be squarely aligned with U.S. foreign policy goals.
2. Republicans Believe USAID Has Undermined Foreign Policy
Republicans are critical of USAID, in part, because they believe that it has wandered from its original purpose and now actively undermines U.S. interests.“The programs that USAID and the State Department have spent money on are indefensible. They hurt America’s standing around the globe,” Mast said on Feb. 13.
Mast and other Republicans listed several programs related to LGBT issues, gender ideology, and abortion that host nations, particularly in Africa, found offensive.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), ranking Democratic member of the committee, said, “These are distractions meant to obscure the critical work USAID does.”
Other Republicans pointed to funding programs intended to advance U.S. interests that have actually benefited America’s enemies.
![Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) speaks with NTD’s Kelly Wright at the DNC in Chicago on Aug. 21, 2024, in a still from video footage. (NTD)](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.theepochtimes.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F08%2F22%2Fid5711136-Rep.-Gregory-Meeks-1200x671.jpg&w=1200&q=75)
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) said the nearly $535 million spent by USAID in Afghanistan in 2024 benefited only the Taliban, who had been known to profit from aid distributions through extortion, the diversion of funds, and theft.
3. Democrats Fear Greater Harm From Withholding Aid
Democrats in both the House and Senate said withholding foreign aid, even temporarily, will undermine America’s national security.“These efforts undermine our foreign assistance [and] are a gift to America’s adversaries,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said of the administration’s action on USAID, speaking at the Feb. 12, roundtable.
Meeks said the same in remarks to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
“Who wins when we pull back from one of America’s greatest strengths? China wins. Russia wins. Our adversaries win,” Meeks said.
In both forums, lawmakers and invited witnesses expounded on that theme, saying that China in particular would cultivate relationships with developing nations by providing the aid withheld by the United States.
![Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) speaks during a hearing reviewing the president’s fiscal year 2024 budget request for the National Guard and Reserve in Washington on June 1, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.theepochtimes.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F06%2F05%2Fid5312272-06012023-DSC07250-Jeanne-Shaheen-1200x800.jpg&w=1200&q=75)
Others said withdrawing U.S. international aid would have downstream effects such as increasing illegal immigration and human trafficking, as well as the spread of deadly diseases such as Ebola that would eventually reach American shores.
“By unilaterally dismantling our entire foreign assistance apparatus, you have endangered every American who relies on that system to keep them safe from global crises,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said on Feb. 13.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that even a temporary pause in delivering aid would cause needless suffering, as money would not reach critical humanitarian programs.
4. Parties Disagree on Legality of Trump’s USAID Order
Democrats are united in denouncing Trump’s action on USAID as illegal.“This seems like illegal impoundment,” Shaheen said, referring to presidential withholding of appropriated funds.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said on Feb. 12, “This abrupt and total shutdown of U.S. foreign aid is inefficient, wasteful, harmful, illegal.”
USAID was created by executive order in 1961 and was made an independent federal agency by Congress in 1998. Democrats said that Congress would have to take action to abolish it.
While Trump has closed offices and ordered a pause in funding and a dramatic reduction in staff, he has not yet taken action to close the agency entirely.
5. Democrats Are Willing to Work on Reforms
Republicans have accused Democrats of being more interested in protecting USAID than in identifying and eliminating wasteful spending.Democratic lawmakers in both forums said they were willing to cooperate with Republicans on reforms but insisted that be done through Congress rather than by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
![Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) on Capitol Hill on March 10, 2021. (Ting Shen-Pool/Getty Images)](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.theepochtimes.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F12%2F11%2FGettyImages-1231635235-1-1200x771.jpg&w=1200&q=75)
“I’m all for ensuring that our tax dollars go to the right place. I’ve always been willing to work across the aisle with my colleagues. I’m sure everyone here will echo those sentiments,” Shaheen said on Feb. 12.
Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) said on Feb. 13 that Congress would have forestalled the problems caused by the administrations if given the chance.
“I do have confidence that if Congress had the opportunity, instead of DOGE, that we could have worked across the aisle to identify what would have been the consequences” and avoided them, Cherfilus-McCormick said.
“I don’t want a 21-year-old tech bro going through and deciding which programs should continue and not continue. Mr. Chairman, I want us to work [together] and do that work,” Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) told Mast on Feb. 13. “That’s our job.”
Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) expressed support for DOGE’s work to cut waste in federal spending.
“I don’t understand the objection to a deep dive into how we spend our money,” Green said.