The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is irredeemable and must be eliminated through legislation. Failure to do so leaves the door open for future administrations to reinvigorate it and reintroduce destructive ideas and agendas into U.S. foreign policy. The idea of “development” has become too obtuse and colonized by progressives to keep the agency limited in scope beyond the Trump administration.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy and Congress consolidated the disparate U.S. international aid programs under the administration of one. Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act, which created USAID to better coordinate the stymieing of international communism in the developing world. USAID assisted or filled the void of incapable governments by provisioning basic services, financing loans for capital projects, and providing food assistance. 

The end of the Cold War and the reduced threat posed by Soviet Communism put the agency’s existence in jeopardy. USAID underwent a reimagining of its raison d’etre by redefining the notion of development. The aperture of development widened. Development became more than the physical or the tangible, it also became associated with how states, societies, and individuals should behave, govern, think, and feel.

The recent revelations of outrageous USAID funding and programming demonstrate how the broadening of the agency’s mission enabled progressive thinking to colonize itself there. Development has become synonymous with a liberal secular coastal elite understanding of “progress.” Funding for “being LGBTQ in the Caribbean,” feeding Yemenis governed by the Houthi militia, and interfering in the domestic affairs of U.S. ally Hungary go beyond the claims of misuse and abuse by USAID. They represent an advancement of the core beliefs and values of progressivism—the universalization of radical individualism, the promotion of equal and equitable outcomes (even for America’s enemies), and pressuring specific societal outcomes and practices.  

Not only are these actions and thinking deeply unpopular and unrepresentative of large swathes of the U.S. population, but they also harm American interests, security, and U.S. partners. The liberal secular perspective propounded by USAID clashes with developing states and societies and helps empower America’s enemies. They challenge and stigmatize traditional, religious, and conservative societies by attacking and undermining their cultures and values while fracturing their identities. This assists enemies actively fighting the United States.

The repercussions of USAID’s endeavors work against the notion of “winning the hearts and minds” of peoples. These endeavors confound governance for U.S. allies and partners, create distrust of the United States, complicate cooperation, encourage deeper relations with China and Russia, and help prolong conflict.

Upon entering the White House, President Trump mitigated the caustic effects of USAID. The administration cut 83 percent of its programming, drastically reduced staff, and incorporated it into the State Department. Secretary of State Marco Rubio became the acting administrator of the agency’s remaining programming. The administration is now working to codify the cuts and reductions through a rescissions package sent to Congress.

Over the long term, the president’s recissions are half-measures at best. Trump has only temporarily placed the agency in a state of semi-suspended animation, though he’s done what he can do alone to keep progressivism at bay. What happens after he leaves office? Trump needs the legislative power of Congress to prevent the resurrection of the agency by dissolving USAID and maintaining the diminution of its problematic ideology.

Progressivism is absolutist and insatiable. Its proponents are intent on subduing and transforming the developing world into the image and likeness of America’s secular coastal elite societies. Progressives adhere to it like a religion; believing they are called to be “missionaries” of the ideology.

Their zeal is exhibited by a disrespect for boundaries, ignoring inhibitions, and manipulating ideas.

The ways in which it has infringed upon U.S. ally Hungary’s sovereignty to produce what it calls a “more democratic society” are just the tip of the iceberg. USAID published the 30-page “Integrating LGBTQI+ Considerations into Education Programming” in 2023. The USAID publication advocated for the violation of the sacred bound between parent and child. It told educators to “protect students’ privacy,” which entails not revealing a student’s gender identity or sexual orientation to parents.

Much attention has been focused on USAID dealings with Palestinian entities and their relationship to the terrorist organization Hamas. More egregious and outrageous is the agency’s willingness to help the Houthis feed their people while the militia targets U.S. warships and sailors. The ideological fervor is alarming. Do USAID administrators and bureaucrats have no inhibitions?

The idea of healthcare has seemingly become boundless. For USAID and its progressive acolytes, today’s healthcare entails more than just vaccines; it incorporates the notion of “wellness”—how people and individuals feel and live. USAID support for being LGBTQ in the Caribbean coupled with gender-affirming care in Guatemala and India occur because the “wellness” of a community and individual supersede a country’s culture and traditions.

Believing that recissions to USAID and three and a half more years of a Trump administration will retire this thinking and its supporters is naïve. Underpinning this rapacious and ubiquitous ideology is a massive welfare-humanitarian-NGO industrial complex. It constitutes patrons of the Democratic Party, institutions, foundations, and organizations that have thrived off and invested heavily in USAID’s obtuse understanding of development. Individuals have constructed careers through, with, and from USAID while universities have devoted resources to training new classes of cadres. They will sit and bide their time for a Democratic administration and the opportunity to (re)employ an instrument of U.S. foreign policy.

History also demonstrates, “reigning in” USAID is temporary. In 1998, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act attempted to better monitor the agency by placing it under the jurisdiction of the State Department. In a matter of years, the agency rebounded. It grew in size, influence, and the outrageous programming and projects returned. By the time of the Biden administration, it was a behemoth. Its budget approached $43 billion in 2023, and for the first time, the agency’s administrator, Samantha Power, sat on the National Security Council.

The continued existence of USAID poses a threat to U.S. interests, security, and U.S. partners. The Trump administration needs to go beyond shrinking and increasing oversight of the agency. They need to pressure Congress to put the nails in the USAID coffin by introducing and passing legislation that prevents the resurrection of the agency.