EDITORIAL: U.S. aid agency shouldn’t be above scrutiny

Donald Trump and Elon Musk have triggered panic in Washington with their efforts to cap the U.S. foreign aid spigot. To the extent that this ignites a conversation about how best to direct billions in American assistance abroad, the move is long overdue. But the White House will need congressional help to accomplish many of its objectives in this area.

Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced he was taking over as head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which spent $44.2 billion in fiscal 2024 on global humanitarian aid and other programs. Critics believe that the agency directs too much American taxpayer money promoting progressive political causes and that much of the spending supports waste, fraud and corruption.

Mr. Rubio acted after higher-ups at USAID were not forthcoming when the Trump administration and Mr. Musk’s DOGE commission sought information on agency spending. “Their basic attitude is we don’t work for anyone,” Mr. Rubio explained, adding, “There are things that are happening at USAID that we should not be involved in funding and or that we have a lot of questions about, but they’re completely uncooperative. So we had no choice but to take dramatic steps to bring this thing under control.”

Democrats argue that Mr. Rubio and the administration are trampling the separation of powers. But the agency was created 60 years ago via executive order and became quasi-independent by an act of Congress in 1998. The enabling legislation notes the head of USAID “shall report to and be under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the secretary of state.” Mr. Rubio had every right to step in.

Foreign aid, which accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, is a popular target. Polls show many Americans believe that Washington sends too much money overseas.

There’s little doubt that a deep dive into the books would turn up problems. For example, Republicans have accused the organization of allowing Hamas to divert millions in USAID funds intended for Gaza.

But there are also legitimate strategic objectives to supporting underdeveloped nations. “We do know that there are good programs that have existed out there that have benefited the stability of many regions around the world, which, in turn, benefits the United States of America,” said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa. “But unfortunately, we have seen those at the top again that have really tried to stop members of Congress from understanding how our taxpayer dollars are flowing through the agency.”

Mr. Trump does not have the authority to eliminate USAID. That would be up to Congress. But he certainly has the power as chief executive to reform the bureaucracy while taking action against employees who won’t cooperate with efforts to ensure they’re working in the best interests of U.S. taxpayers.

The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.