How misconceptions and woeful PR allowed Musk to shred USAID so easily | Jeremiah A Carew
A former USAID official argues that poor public understanding of the agency's work, combined with weak communication of its achievements, made it an easy target when Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) moved to dismantle it in January 2025. The writer contrasts USAID's low public profile with Nasa's carefully cultivated national prestige, arguing that had Doge targeted Nasa instead, the backlash would have made such cuts politically unthinkable, whereas USAID had few defenders able to counter Musk's characterisation of it as a "criminal organisation".
The author, a former deputy director of USAID's Colombia mission, cites a March 2025 Kaiser Family Foundation survey showing 86% of Americans overestimate foreign aid spending, believing it accounts for roughly a quarter of the federal budget when the true figure is about 1%. They detail USAID-backed work in Colombia, including helping Venezuelan migrants gain legal residency, guaranteeing loans for sustainable Amazon businesses and coca-alternative crops, and supporting implementation of the 2016 peace accord, arguing such achievements were rarely communicated effectively to the American public before the agency's elimination cost thousands of jobs and billions in aid.
- Former USAID official blames poor PR for the agency's dismantling by Doge
- Survey found 86% of Americans wildly overestimate US foreign aid spending
- Article cites USAID's Colombia work on migration, environment and peace accord
New here? Start with this
Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, known as Doge, moved in January 2025 to dismantle USAID, the US government agency responsible for administering foreign aid and development assistance around the world. The closure led to thousands of job losses and the loss of billions of dollars in aid programmes. This piece is written by a former USAID official who worked as deputy director of the agency's mission in Colombia.
The author argues that USAID's low public profile made it vulnerable, in contrast to an agency like Nasa, whose achievements are widely known and celebrated. They point to survey data showing most Americans significantly overestimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, which they say made it easier for critics to portray the agency negatively.
The article also describes specific USAID-funded projects in Colombia, such as helping Venezuelan migrants obtain legal residency and supporting alternatives to coca cultivation, as examples of work the author says was rarely explained clearly to the American public before the agency was shut down.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The case for the author’s argument is that public support for an agency depends partly on people understanding what it does and why it matters. If Americans greatly overestimate foreign aid spending and hear little about USAID’s practical work, the agency may have few public advocates when its role is attacked; clearer communication could have made its value harder to dismiss.
The case against
A thoughtful counterargument is that communication alone may not have prevented USAID’s dismantling: decisions by political leaders, budget priorities and views about the proper scope of foreign aid can drive policy even when an agency is well known. The comparison with Nasa may also overstate the power of prestige, since programmes can attract public affection yet still face cuts, and USAID’s work might be judged on its results and accountability rather than its public profile.