In a recent episode of The New York Times podcast Interesting Times, Ross Douthat spoke with Jeremy Lewin—a DOGE veteran now charged with implementing the Trump administration’s sweeping changes to foreign aid and development work within the State Department.
As the former US Agency for International Development (USAID) Chief Economist, I’m glad to see The New York Times engaging in this important conversation. They cover the myth that USAID was rife with corruption—Lewin comments that DOGE “didn’t find that much fraud” at the agency—and clarifies that USAID was dismantled simply because the administration disagreed with its work.
Lewin expressed an important aspiration: the United States will continue giving aid, “more efficiently, more tailored, more targeted, in a way that is not creating dependency.” During my two-plus years at USAID, my office and I shared this aspiration, and helped shift $1.7 billion to program designs with strong evidence of impact.
I have two pieces of advice for Lewin and his colleagues at the State Department:
First, graduating countries from aid dependency requires a team that understands the local context and can help build stronger markets and local institutions. This will be tough with the current skeleton staff. Focus, scale, and simplicity will be key.
Second, running a streamlined, efficient aid portfolio is an admirable aim, but is easier said than done. Recent advances have shown which programs do the most good per dollar spent. Savvy foreign aid practitioners and decision makers should use such evidence to guide their decisions on how to spend budgets. Simply put: aligning foreign aid with national interests is irrelevant if ineffective program designs are then procured.
The blank slate you now have, while daunting, must be exhilarating—think of the good you can do, the lives you can save, poverty you can reduce, and yes, the national interests you can further for this generous nation (and its taxpayers).
To quote the great American philosopher, Spider-Man’s uncle: “With great power comes great responsibility.” Following the evidence on what generates cost-effective impact and what does not, evidence produced on countless topics over the past 30 years, can help you live up to that credo.
