The Mess That Is Discretionary Spending

There’s a considerable amount of kerfuffle over the treatment of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). William Galston provides a pretty good primer in his column at the Wall Street Journal:

President John F. Kennedy established USAID via an executive order, relying on authority granted to him by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Had USAID remained in this status, Mr. Trump would be within his rights to eliminate it by reversing Kennedy’s order. But in 1998 Congress enacted a law establishing USAID as a distinct entity within the executive branch and distinguishing between its functions and those of the State Department. The law granted President Bill Clinton a few months to modify the plan, after which his authority to do so would lapse. His report to Congress stated that USAID would “continue as an independent establishment in the Executive Branch.”

Congress legislated on this subject again last year. According to Brookings scholar George Ingram, the 2024 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act explicitly prohibited a reorganization, redesign or elimination of USAID without congressional participation.

but

Enter newly confirmed Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who told reporters accompanying him to Latin America that USAID is “a completely unresponsive agency.” Citing his experience in Congress, he stated that “it’s supposed to respond to policy directives with the State Department, and it refuses to do so.”

If this alleged unresponsiveness continues, Mr. Rubio would have the authority to fire noncompliant officials and seek to replace them with people who would respect his statutory authority. But he has no legal right to abolish USAID any more than the president does.

In other words USAID can legally be completely dismantled but not abolished. It would take an act of Congress to abolish it. That wouldn’t be unique or even unusual. The federal government has hundreds of “zombie programs”, programs that remain on the books, some funded and some not, but don’t actually do anything.

There are several ways of looking at the kerfuffle. The first is that USAID is a tiny portion of federal spending. Not a significant cut. That ignores serious problems with the agency.

My view is that USAID operated for more than 30 years solely on the basis of an executive order and without significant empowering legislation. That’s a problem on its face. In my opinion there should not be such a thing as an “independent agency within the Executive Branch”. Every agency should be subject to the will and policies set up for it by the Congress in its empowering legislation, subject to the will and policies set up for it by the president, or both. Not independent.

Marco Rubio has the right of it.

Furthermore, the executive order President Trump issued on USAID lists some of the agency’s dubious programs. My question is how do these programs support “international development”. The description “slush fund” has been used to describe USAID. To what degree is that right or wrong?

My second observation is how is it in the U. S. interest to intercede in the political or social arrangements of other countries and how is that development?

My third observation is a question. Should the federal government be funding foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs)? I think not at least not without considerable oversight and I believe the majority of Americans agree with me. Let’s not conflate “foreign aid” with “providing support for foreign NGOs”.