Changing Course to a Good-Faith Aid Review: How Four Principles Could Advance the American Interest and Save Lives

On January 24, a new State Department directive paused the vast majority of US foreign assistance, effective immediately, pending a “government-wide comprehensive review of all foreign assistance” for consistency with President Trump’s foreign policy agenda. The pause extended beyond new awards to include “stop work” orders on existing programs—including those that provide lifesaving support, like HIV medicines, nutrition supplementation, and non-emergency food aid. On January 27, news broke that USAID had placed almost all of its civil service leadership on administrative leave, gutting the agency of expertise and experience. Later that night, a leaked Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo extended the pause on grants to all federal agencies—though its contents still implied a preoccupation with foreign assistance specifically, alongside other administration concerns like DEI and “woke gender ideology.”

The reaction from the aid world has been one of justifiably escalating concern, fear, and anger, as each subsequent action by the administration suggests increasingly extreme and far-reaching consequences for US foreign assistance programs, as well as domestic programs that advance science and health research. The worries are manyfold, with short- and long-term implications. In the immediate term, aid advocates believe (with very good reason) that beneficiaries will die without access to needed medicine or other essential services–for example, HIV medicines, which are already purchased and sitting in warehouses, but can no longer be distributed. The process itself is also a recipe for chaos and distrust; with abrupt stop-work orders, there is no time to transition programs or to provide orderly guidance to employees, partners, and beneficiaries. In the longer term, the sum total of administration actions, including the purge of senior civil servants, suggests an agenda to gut USAID’s core mandate and operations. 

The writing on the wall is hard to ignore. But for Secretary Rubio, who has been a long-time supporter of smart foreign aid, there is still time to change course toward his stated policy goal: US foreign assistance that makes America stronger, safer, and more prosperous. This blog starts from the premise that Secretary Rubio is sincere in this sentiment, and in turn makes the case for how to conduct a good-faith, smart aid review in service of the administration’s goals and the American people. The administration may very well be uninterested, but if we take them at their word, the following four principles could turn a looming disaster into genuinely good policy.

1. Pause obligations–not disbursements

The foreign assistance financial distribution process is complicated. Funds are first appropriated by Congress, then apportioned by OMB, and then announced via requests for proposals (RFPs), Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), or similar solicitations by an agency. Only at that point–after a bidding and review process–are funds awarded to a specific implementing partner, who in turn receives a contract or grant. Typically, awards come with an initial “obligation” of funds--which effectively commits obligated money to the partner, allowing them to plan its use with confidence, even if funds have not yet been disbursed. As written, the new policy issues immediate stop-work orders on almost all ongoing programs–even if they have existing obligations or disbursements that could fund activities.   

The administration should urgently revise its guidance to pause new awards and obligations–not disbursements and activities. It is entirely reasonable (and arguably common sense) to pause new proposals and awards while the review is underway. It is also reasonable to pause obligations; all implementers understand that any unobligated funds are not yet guaranteed.

In contrast, an abrupt, sweeping “stop-work” on existing programs is a recipe for chaos and disorder. It leaves US citizens stranded abroad, often in war zones or other unstable environments to which they’ve been sent on behalf of their country. It creates confusion and paralysis for partners who are working hand-in-hand with US counterparts and relying on their cooperation. It’s legally questionable. And it means that programs stop from one day to the next–with no time or space for domestic governments or other partners, like local NGOs, to step in and take over service provision, including those with life-or-death consequences (see below).

Pausing all new obligations is already a dramatic shake-up to the system, but it prevents the worst disruptions while protecting American citizens and organizations working on behalf of the American people abroad.

2. Review all programs–but keep basic lifesaving services up and running for now

A comprehensive aid review should indeed subject every program to scrutiny. Yet, while the review is ongoing, the administration should exempt all basic lifesaving services from the temporary pause. This includes emergency food aid, which was already given a waiver in the initial memo. But it also includes many other kinds of assistance, for example nutrition, medicines, malaria bed nets, water, basic health services, and other lifesaving support, as well as food aid delivered in non-emergency settings. Simply put, people will die if these services are suddenly cut off, without any transition period during which other NGOs, governments, or domestic agencies could take over service provision.

Perhaps recognizing the importance of continuity in these services, reports suggest that the administration has issued a waiver pathway for programs that are “necessary for lifesaving purposes.” Unfortunately, the waiver requires two levels of agency approval and cannot be reasonably expected to process the sufficient volume of legitimate waiver claims with the requisite timeliness to save lives. A blanket waiver for all lifesaving services is urgently needed while the review is underway. 

3. Carefully consider the US national interest–and how aid programs can advance it

Secretary Rubio is absolutely correct that US foreign assistance programs should advance the national interest–making America “safer, stronger, and more prosperous.” Foreign aid cannot be delivered behind the back of the American taxpayer; democratic legitimacy demands that tax dollars be spent in ways that are transparent, justifiable, and in service to the US citizenry. The aid review should consider this question carefully, with a well-reasoned theory about how aid can serve the American interest–and how to evaluate when it does.

There are relatively extreme interpretations (on both sides) about how one could define this. To caricature slightly, the most fervent aid advocates could argue that essentially all aid serves the national interest, for example, by endearing us (at very low cost) to governments and populations with whom we seek productive relationships and alliances against our adversaries. At the other extreme, transactional aid critics could take a very narrow view of the American interest, justifying aid only if it immediately unlocked some sort of valuable policy or other concession, for example investment in American firms or jobs; access to new markets for American companies; or security cooperation against American adversaries. 

Secretary Rubio’s aid review will be most valuable if it takes a sober middle ground. The review should consider the potential value of relationships and leverage for American interests, as well as how the results of successful aid programs can contribute to American foreign policy and security goals. For example, the assessment could pose the following types of questions about how a given program might serve American interests: 

• Does the program help counter the influence of competitors, particularly China, with partner governments?
• Does the program support the health and safety of American service members deployed abroad, for example, by helping suppress infectious diseases or toxic chemicals to which they might be exposed or building infrastructure that can also support deployments? 
• Does the program help prevent, monitor, or support countermeasure development for emerging infectious diseases or pandemics–for example, the avian flu pandemic that has already killed one American citizen and raised the price of eggs to over $7 in many American grocery stores?
• Does the program, directly or indirectly, help protect supply chains for essential goods for Americans, including affordable food, fuel, pharmaceuticals, and raw materials/minerals? 
• Does the program, directly or indirectly, help open up additional markets to US exports and investments, or create American jobs? 
• Does the program, directly or indirectly, help build governmental capacity, security, or economic opportunity that can help dissuade or prevent extremist affiliations or irregular migration? 
• Would discontinuing a specific proposal create severe reputational or other risks to America or American citizens? 
• Is the program part of a broader strategic partnership with long-term economic, military, and geopolitical implications?

This list is obviously (very) incomplete. Still, it provides a framework for how to approach the question–with a skeptical eye that also appreciates and understands the many possible paths via which aid can advance the national interest.

4. Advance the national interest with programs that work

Having a mission that advances the national interest is a great first step–but for aid programs to translate into American safety, prosperity, and strength, they also need to work. I’d urge the aid review to consider not just the mission of a given aid program but also its claim to effectiveness–that is, which programs are actually delivering on their stated goals? 

To understand that, we need agencies to invest in more and more rigorous (or at least appropriate) external evaluation—which still falls short of a 3 percent (of program budget) goal set by USAID in 2011. Secretary Rubio should also encourage agencies to act on the findings of those evaluations–and evaluations from a range of reputable sources–to help inform future programming. 

In addition, good stewardship of taxpayer dollars relies on more than collecting receipts and ensuring a robust paper trail. And yet, a deep-seated culture of compliance keeps many employees of the State Department and USAID busy reporting on an almost unending list of performance indicators (some of which are almost meaningless in isolation), leaving less time and energy to understand what works and how to get the most bang for our buck. A reform agenda from the Secretary should refocus USAID on getting results–not just ticking the paperwork boxes.

Finally, effective aid requires experienced leaders with real expertise–for example, people who have built trusted relationships with networks of partner organizations and governments, understand how to interpret and apply evidence, and can enforce the systems that prevent corruption and gross misconduct in aid distribution. By that, I mean USAID’s civilian leadership. Unless there is clear and incontrovertible evidence of direct insubordination, USAID should restore civil servants to their posts, with clear instructions going forward about how to comply with Executive Orders and other relevant actions. 

Conclusion

Secretary Rubio’s stated policy goals can and should be achieved with a good-faith aid review–but recent administration actions suggest a dark path for US foreign assistance that will weaken America and put many lives at risk. A different, more measured approach could result in radical aid reform done the right way, without putting the US reputation or personnel at risk. With these four policy principles, Secretary Rubio has an opportunity to get US foreign assistance back on the right foot in service to American policy goals and US citizens at home and abroad.