Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

USAID Bears the American Identity

USAID flag outside a building
A USAID flag outside a building.
J. David Ake/Getty Images

What an agency, organization, or even an idea becomes will always resemble to some degree—though it fluctuates across time—the inspiration at its inception.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was born from the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and it enshrined for the first time in the short history of international development assistance the concept of people’s “participation” in their own change and growth. Now, generations later, based on evaluations world-wide across cultures, we know that the local beneficiaries need to be integral to the design, management, and evaluation processes in order for initiatives to provide continued gain for the people.


Development today, beyond any doubt, has revealed that the longevity of initiatives is primarily determined by the measure of participation. USAID was spawned on this idea, majorly pioneering the principle that beneficiary decision-making on the projects that impact their lives drives sustainability.

USAID was also founded on a corollary, indelible concept: poverty alleviation that addresses the economic, social, and environmental conditions that oppress people and deny them livelihood and peace is, in and of itself, the high purpose. Geopolitics is not the single or even primary factor for gaining assistance through USAID. Rather, uplifting humanity from the tortures of extreme poverty, disease, and catastrophes is its calling.

USAID delinked assistance being only provided to contain the Soviet Union. Human suffering, wherever it may emanate, is worthy of our attention and eradication. How these central concepts of USAID unfold in those nations of the world where it is invited is particular to the situations in which host nations find themselves.

For example, the experience of the High Atlas Foundation in implementing USAID’s Dakira cultural preservation program in Morocco (concluded at the end of 2024) ensured that today’s young people sincerely internalize their nation’s indelible heritage of Muslim, Jewish and Christian solidarity, integration, and shared experience and partnership for survival and growth. This is a priority held by the government and the people of this North African, Islamic country, and USAID provided the support for it.

In a world where religious-based strife, misunderstanding, separation, and even violence is ever present, worrisome, and unsustainable, the governments of Morocco and the United States together recognized that the kingdom’s experience and its domestic and global knowledge-sharing provide an inspiring model for young people and policymakers. In fact, interfaith collaboration is not only essential for peace, but our best development and growth depends upon it.

Morocco stands for intercultural dialogue and connectivity leading to livelihood, health, and education. It is not only a necessary, most viable pathway for itself but is an emblem for the world. USAID not only saves lives through the provision of essential medicine, food, and support in the face of overwhelming disaster, but it also is a critical partner in advancing American ideals with nations who also strive for a more perfect union and inspire others through their journey.

To be sure, there is an undeniable phenomenon among organizations and agencies as they grow and naturally change over decades. In time, it becomes increasingly difficult for any entity—including religions or institutions, be they public, civil, academic, or private—to remain absolutely true to the original vision that launched them.

How recognizable would nations of the world be to their founders? How recognizable are conglomerates to their original creators or religions to the prophecies that begot them? There may be no greater challenge for any collective body than to remain consistently true to the original mission over time.

Certainly, the High Atlas Foundation, dedicated to change driven by the people, finds it increasingly difficult to launch every action in every location with empowerment and building self-belief and confidence as the essential beginning. It is very difficult.

So, too, USAID needed to return to its community participation roots. With its necessary, admirable commitment to implementers’ financial, programmatic, and reporting compliance, USAID began to heavily rely upon larger organizations to administer local actions around the world. Those organizations in turn partnered with national organizations working at the local level. USAID re-emphasized that localization enacted alongside indigenous civil and private groups is critical for effective development.

The lessons in international development generated by USAID have profound implications for the United States’ internal growth. For example, cultural preservation efforts in Morocco, financed by USAID, underscore the centrality of interfaith partnership for achieving sustainable benefits. That vital lesson should be a guide for the White House Faith-Based Office, which stretches across federal agencies.

Community managed economic projects point to how decentralized administrative systems emerge from carrying out such actions. This points to ways the U.S. federal government can strengthen the enduring core of the country, which is its federalist system.

Yes, USAID promotes a more stable and prosperous world and helps to alleviate immediate suffering, but it also brings home vital lessons to promote the U.S.’ own best growth. The Farmer-to-Farmer Program, for example, enabled U.S. agricultural experts to devote millions of hours to share their vast knowledge with nations of the world. What they have learned during their volunteering with communities abroad has enhanced their own work, productivity, efficiency, and opportunities at home.

USAID is a reflection or extension of the American ideal and may be retrenched for a time, but no doubt, one day, it will continue. It must, lest its expression, which rings from every true American anthem, will grow silent. It is therefore bound to the destiny of the United States, whatever its iteration.

Yossef Ben-Meir is the President of the High Atlas Foundation.

Read More

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Need To Focus on Communication

Democrat Donkey phone operator

AI illustration

Democrats Need To Focus on Communication

The Democrats have a problem…I realize this isn’t a revelation, but I believe they’re boxed into a corner with limited options to regain their footing. Don’t get me wrong, the party could have a big win in the 2026 midterms with a backlash building against Trump and MAGA. In some scenarios, that could also lead to taking back the White House in 2028…but therein lies the problem.

In its second term, the Trump administration has severely cut government agencies, expanded the power of the Executive branch, enacted policies that will bloat the federal deficit, dismantled parts of the social safety net, weakened our standing in the world, and moved the US closer to a “pay for play” transactional philosophy of operating government that’s usually reserved for Third World countries. America has veered away from being the model emulated by other nations that aim to build a stable democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less