- Former US President Donald Trump criticized a $21 million USAID program in India, alleging it benefited US officials more than India.
- USAID funds were allocated for studying voter turnout, political processes, and education in countries like India, Bangladesh, and Nepal.
- Washington experts argue that cutting such programs weakens US foreign policy knowledge, but Trump insists America should focus on domestic issues.
Is Foreign Aid a Necessity or a Wasteful Expense?
The debate over US foreign aid has reignited, with Donald Trump calling USAID’s voter turnout program in India a “kickback scheme.” Speaking at the Republican Governors Association meeting, Trump suggested that much of the money funneled through USAID ends up benefiting American officials rather than the countries it is meant to help.
While USAID insiders reject the “kickback” label, they admit a significant portion of such funding is spent on administrative costs, including salaries and travel for US personnel executing these programs. The funds in question were channeled through organizations like the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS), which has ties to the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Critics argue that these organizations, often linked to Democratic and establishment Republican figures, use US taxpayer money to influence political processes abroad.
Should the US Cut Funding for International Programs?
Trump and his supporters argue that the US should stop funding foreign programs that don’t have a direct benefit to America. “Why are we caring about India’s voter turnout? We have enough problems of our own,” he said. His “America First” stance focuses on reducing foreign aid, avoiding nation-building, and limiting US involvement in overseas political processes.
However, foreign policy experts warn that gutting such programs could weaken the US’s strategic influence. They point to past successes where American investments in regional expertise helped Washington understand global political shifts, including in India during the rise of leaders like Narasimha Rao and Narendra Modi. In contrast, they cite Afghanistan as an example of failure, where the lack of language experts in Pashto and Dari made it difficult for the US to navigate local politics.
With Trump once again leading the Republican race for the 2024 presidential election, his stance on foreign aid could have far-reaching implications. Will the US continue its global involvement, or will Trump’s vision of an America that “minds its own business” reshape its foreign policy?
Leave a Reply