Are the accusations against USAID justified?

In recent developments that highlight the fraught nature of American politics, the Trump administration’s scrutinizing gaze has fallen upon the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a key player in the global outreach efforts of the U.S. government. This move has stirred a discourse that spans beyond U.S. borders, roping in responses from Azerbaijani pro-government media and eliciting comments from local political figures like Natig Jafarli, chairman of the REAL Party in Azerbaijan.

In an interview with the Difficult Question program, Jafarli noted that the close attention to USAID from President Trump's team did not come as a surprise. He notes that Trump and his allies have long voiced concerns about what they perceive as excessive government spending. These concerns have manifested in calls for stringent controls over federal expenditures. In an unprecedented step, Elon Musk, a notable figure associated with the Trump administration, was granted access to the federal payment system by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, ostensibly to monitor and potentially curtail government spending. Musk had earlier been appointed to lead a newly created department aimed at enhancing government efficiency, cutting down on an inflated bureaucratic apparatus, and combating inefficiency within the federal system.

USAID, traditionally seen as a stronghold of Democratic interests due to its funding structure reliant on government rather than private investment, allocates about 1% of the federal budget annually. Critics from the Trump administration argue that a significant portion of USAID’s programs do not align with the key interests of the United States but rather serve Democratic agendas. “The main reason for such a harsh conflict surrounding this organization is not just the disproportionate expenses, but also the fact that a considerable part of its funding is not connected with the key national interests of the United States, and rather reflects an ongoing struggle between Republicans and Democrats,” Jafarli contends.

Despite criticisms, USAID has been acknowledged for its positive impacts, including grants supporting educational initiatives, healthcare programs, and the development of small businesses and farms globally. However, Jafarli also points out an undeniable bias within the organization towards Armenian interests, which he claims is a recognized fact that fuels discontent in Azerbaijan. “To portray Azerbaijan as a participant in a conflict with USAID is, to say the least, unserious,” the expert asserts, suggesting that such a portrayal oversimplifies and misrepresents the nuanced relationships and interests at play.

This tug-of-war over USAID’s role and funding encapsulates broader ideological battles within the United States, highlighting how domestic policy decisions resonate on the international stage, influencing perceptions and interactions far beyond American borders. As the Trump administration continues to challenge the status quo, the global implications of its policies remain a subject of keen interest and debate among allies and critics alike.