Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

USAID: By helping others, we help ourselves

Opinion

USAID: By helping others, we help ourselves

Zika emergency response in Honduras.

Brendan Bannon for USAID

“Radical leftists, grifters, and lunatics” are the labels that Elon Musk uses to describe people who worked for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) or anyone who dares to speak up in favor of an agency that for over sixty years has embodied the democratic values this country aspires to live by. Most Americans, indeed, have no clue what foreign aid is, which makes it easy for this Administration to weaponize it and demonize USAID’s work.

For the record, I worked at USAID for three years as a senior communications advisor in the Bureau for Global Health. I was hired as a contractor under the Obama Administration and stayed for about 18 months into the first Trump Administration. Before joining USAID, I worked with organizations that implemented USAID’s programs and delivered humanitarian assistance in far-flung places. For seven years, I lived in Nairobi, Kenya, where I saw first-hand the impact of U.S. foreign assistance programs.


USAID rally in Washington DC, one with Senator Cory Booker. Kelley Lynch

So yes, I suppose Musk could label me—and thousands of aid workers like me—as leftists, grifters, or lunatics. But here’s the difference between us and Musk: we choose to work in foreign aid because we believe that every person, regardless of wealth or geography, has the right to live in peace, with dignity, and the opportunities to reach their full human potential. That means access to education, healthcare, and protection from intimidation and harm.

Is this really a “radical” idea?

The executive order to reevaluate and realign foreign assistance was among the first ones signed by President Trump on his inauguration day. On January 24, a Stop-Work Order targeting USAID was issued by Secretary of State Rubio. What started as a 90-day freeze on U.S. foreign aid programs, pending a review process has turned into a permanent shutdown of an Agency and an entire sector where the U.S. was a leader for six decades. This move leaves a ready-made power vacuum for China to step in.

The latest figures, as reported by Devex, suggest that USAID’s workforce was cut from 10,000 to 294 in just a week. USAID staff stationed in U.S. embassies were told to return home immediately, having to quickly pack up homes and pull kids abruptly out of school. USAID’s website, which contained a ton of useful data, went offline almost immediately, and its X account was removed. This was a deliberate purge meant to eradicate what Musk and President Trump perceive to be a “Marxist ideology.”

The disinformation Musk has spread since vowing to annihilate USAID is astonishing. On X, he called the agency “ criminal ” and said it was “time for it to die,” boasting that he spent the weekend “ feeding USAID into the woodchipper.” What I find most alarming is that he and other tech plutocrats now control our digital information landscape, using “freedom of expression” as a pretext to eliminate fact-checkers, amplify falsehoods, and discredit many dedicated government workers.

Shutting down USAID does not just impact the federal workforce, but it is definitely taking a major hit. It is also affecting thousands of people working for USAID’s implementing partners. They are the backbone of USAID, the “boots-on-the-ground,” those who work with local governments and civil society to strengthen health systems, boost agricultural productivity, harness innovation for research, or train media professionals to discern facts from fiction – just to name some USAID-funded activities.

Most importantly, the looming USAID shutdown is wreaking havoc in communities worldwide. People who depend on life-saving medicines for HIV, TB, and malaria are being turned away from health clinics. Clinical trials are abruptly stopping in South Africa, leaving people with no access to monitoring or care. Afghan girls will lose access to secret schools, their only hope to get an education under Taliban rule. An aid worker friend warned me that without USAID support, Burmese journalists in Thailand would be forced back to Burma, risking their lives.

To make matters worse, efforts to contain disease outbreaks—like Ebola, Mpox, or Bird flu—are suddenly defunded, putting American lives at risk. Let me break this down for you. During the Zika outbreak, I traveled to Honduras and Jamaica to document U.S. taxpayer-funded programs. These initiatives supported mothers of babies born with congenital Zika syndrome, trained community leaders on basic sanitation measures, strengthened lab capacity for disease surveillance, and partnered with U.S. companies to harness innovation. Infectious diseases don’t respect borders. The only way to contain them is by collaborating with other countries and investing in preparedness.

Watch Samantha Power’s video interview with Stephen Colbert on why we need USAID:

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Let’s be clear: poverty and despair fuel radicalization, posing a threat to U.S. national security. USAID’s work, and that of its implementing partners, are the “soft power” of American diplomacy. By helping others, we help ourselves. When I lived in East Africa and visited refugee camps in Kenya and Sudan, I often saw large bags of food aid bearing the USAID logo with the tagline “from the American people.” In rural pharmacies, I encountered stacked boxes of medicines with USAID branding. I used to cringe when I saw that logo. Other donors are not as eager to publicize their gifts. But American generosity has brought us goodwill on the ground despite our sometimes-harmful foreign policy.

Experts question the legality of shutting down USAID, an agency created by Congress in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy. Lawsuits are being filed, but President Trump, eager to appease his base, is pushing ahead. After all, this is an easy target that feeds the MAGA narrative on “massive” spending of American taxpayer’s money abroad. The fact is that Congress sets USAID budget priorities, and the U.S. only spends about 0.7% of its federal budget on foreign assistance, far less than other G7 countries.

At the end of the day, foreign aid and humanitarian assistance are about understanding that uplifting others is not a zero-sum game. This is the “radical” concept that seems to be so threatening to one of the wealthiest men in the world and to this administration.

Beatrice Spadacini is a freelance journalist for the Fulcrum. Spadacini writes about social justice and public health.








Read More

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less