In recent weeks, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and political commentator Charlie Kirk have both highlighted a series of questionable U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) expenditures. According to their findings, taxpayer dollars have funded programs such as:
- $1.5 million to promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in Serbian workplaces.
- $70,000 for a DEI-themed musical in Ireland.
- $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia.
- $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.
- $2 million toward gender-affirming surgeries and LGBT activism in Guatemala.
- $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt.
- $2 million to develop a Sesame Street program in Iraq.
- $4.5 million to combat “disinformation” in Kazakhstan.
Their statements have fueled broader discussions about government spending priorities, with others pointing to additional controversial allocations beyond those listed above. While supporters argue these programs serve diplomatic and cultural engagement efforts, critics question whether they represent responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
The debate over USAID’s expenditures has intensified, particularly as the Trump administration, with Elon Musk’s involvement, moves to dismantle the agency. This has led to significant backlash from Democratic lawmakers and activists.
Protests have erupted nationwide—including in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and various state capitals across California, Minnesota, Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin, and Indiana.
Democrats’ Last Stand for USAID
As protests erupted, Senator Chris Van Hollen and a group of House and Senate Democrats made their way to USAID headquarters, demanding access to the agency as a sign of defiance. The scene quickly turned chaotic when security officials denied them entry. “Trying to shut down the Agency for International Development by executive order is plain illegal,” Van Hollen shouted, calling the move a “clear violation of law.”
The protest didn’t end there. Nonprofit workers, USAID employees, and foreign aid advocates gathered near Capitol Hill, waving signs and chanting against the shutdown. Meanwhile, Representative Ilhan Omar warned that Trump and Musk’s aggressive cuts could lead to a “constitutional crisis” and cripple America’s global influence.
Their frustration is understandable—USAID has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since John F. Kennedy established it in 1961. It has funneled billions into economic development, democracy promotion, global health, and disaster relief worldwide. But its defenders now find themselves fighting an uphill battle against an administration determined to gut the agency from the inside out.
Trump and Musk’s War on USAID
This isn’t just about cutting spending—it’s about changing the fundamental role of U.S. foreign aid.
Since his January 2025 inauguration, Donald Trump has frozen nearly all foreign aid spending. Musk, in his role at DOGE, has gone a step further, calling USAID a “criminal organization” and pushing for its outright abolition. Their plan? Merge USAID into the State Department, slash its budget to a fraction of its former size, and eliminate “woke” spending.
The legal question looms large. USAID was created by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, meaning Congress, not the president, controls its fate. But by stripping it of funding and folding its responsibilities into other agencies, Trump and Musk could effectively dismantle it without passing a single law.
And it’s not just Democrats who are concerned. Even Republican foreign policy hawks have privately expressed unease about losing such a powerful diplomatic tool. Cutting off foreign aid doesn’t just hurt recipient countries—it weakens U.S. influence abroad, creating a vacuum that China and Russia are eager to fill.
A Moment of Reckoning
As Democrats scramble to mount legal challenges, and protesters take to the streets, one thing is certain: the battle over USAID is no longer just about government efficiency—it’s about the soul of U.S. foreign policy.
Can Musk and Trump actually shut it down? Not in one fell swoop. But they can strangle it to the point of irrelevance.
For critics, this is a reckless move that abandons America’s role as a global leader. For supporters, it’s a long-overdue reckoning for an agency that has been wasting taxpayer money on ideological pet projects.
What happens next? That’s up to Congress, the courts, and the next battle in Washington’s endless war over spending.
One thing is clear: USAID as we knew it is already gone.
Disclaimer: This article provides political commentary and analysis based on publicly available reports and statements from government officials. The opinions expressed reflect the author’s interpretation of recent events and do not constitute an endorsement of any political party, individual, or policy. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, information is subject to change as new developments emerge. Readers are encouraged to consult multiple sources and form their own conclusions.
