Chinese Expert: Musk’s Criticism of USAID Reveals a Tendency to Bully the Weak and Fear the Strong

[This article was originally published on China’s largest political website Guancha.cn, authored by Fudan University Professor Shen Yi. Excerpted and AI-translated by The China Academy.]

Today, we will discuss Musk’s layoffs and Trump’s new policies. One of the focal points is about the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Musk proposed a layoff plan to shut it down and claimed to have obtained Trump’s consent.

For readers unfamiliar with USAID, here’s a brief introduction. Simply put, USAID is an agency closely related to the U.S. Department of State but operates independently. On the surface, it’s not a strict U.S. government department; it emphasizes civilian and expert attributes. However, in practical terms, all project managers dispatched by USAID must submit reports to the U.S. ambassador in the project location, and the ambassador evaluates the performance of USAID’s specific projects.

Therefore, we can understand USAID as an agency that appears relatively independent but is, in fact, accountable to the Department of State. Through information disclosed by former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios to the media, we can essentially trace the development trajectory, core features, primary functions, and existing issues of USAID since the end of the Cold War. During the presidency of George W. Bush, Andrew Natsios was in charge of USAID. Under his administration and in the post-Cold War context, USAID’s budget doubled to $14 billion, with a global staff count reaching 8,100 and operations spanning 80 countries.

It is important to note that although USAID is a U.S. agency, according to Andrew Natsios, three-quarters of its employees are not Americans. They are locals from the countries where USAID operates. USAID has primarily established three functions:

First, creating an environment that is friendly and favorable towards the U.S. globally, especially in project locations.

Second, gaining economic influence for the U.S. locally.

Third, obtaining political influence. This influence is directly reflected in affecting local elites—ensuring that those with work experience at USAID can become top political elites locally.

Andrew Natsios gave two examples in an interview: Costa Rica’s first female president was a diplomat before taking office and worked at USAID for 10 years; El Salvador’s first female vice president had a similar trajectory, starting her career at USAID for 10 years before becoming vice president.

Of course, achieving these requires some supporting conditions.

Third, crafting flexible packaging, which means highly adaptable slogans. In this instance, Musk accused USAID of being a radical, left-wing agency filled with various ideologies and slogans that do not align with domestic U.S. politics, warranting its elimination.

[Image]

On February 3, 2025, employees and supporters held a protest outside the USAID headquarters. CBS News

In the words of Andrew Natsios, he encourages his employees to run for local public office, enter the local political system, and expand USAID’s influence. From this perspective, you can understand USAID’s functions as follows:

1. **Placement of Informants**: Through this, the organization can obtain reliable information from various sectors like politics, economy, culture, and society at the first opportunity when there’s any change.

2. **Expanding Influence**: With its pervasive influence, the United States can act more seamlessly when exerting its influence locally. The initial focus is on deregulation and expert evaluation. USAID employs domain-specific problem experts rather than generalists, and this is done through a project-based format. It can be seen as a large intermediary contractor subcontracting and distributing projects. The U.S. State Department and government allocate various foreign aid funds to USAID’s specific projects, and these budgets are then managed locally and given to specific local operators and project leaders.

Additionally, USAID operates independently of the U.S. State Department and the civil service system, maintaining a relatively independent status. It can delve into specific project areas and invest consistently over periods of 10 to 25 years, continuously energizing America with efforts on gender issues, human rights, and environmental issues. By doing so, it effectively manages the perception, thoughts, and ideologies of local generations. However, from Andrew Natsios’s perspective, this is somewhat comical, as external power finds consistent entry points by adapting to local values which might be entirely different from America’s.

According to Natsios’s interviews, USAID packages itself in a way that aligns with the ideology of groups it aims to connect with. If it weren’t for people like Natsios speaking out, such specifics would rarely be disclosed, even in open materials. Musk’s role in reforming USAID unexpectedly showcased the organization’s core characteristics, though people might wonder if this means the U.S. will stop engaging in color revolutions or promoting favorable actions abroad. In reality, Musk’s DOGE department, as well as the U.S. State Department, have their own ideas. A representative thought involves what are called small community action projects. This involves the U.S. government, as the principal financier, not using any intermediaries and directly distributing budgets and responsibilities to local action leaders.

From a business perspective, this aligns with Musk’s approach of reducing intermediary costs. USAID’s bloated structure makes it a primary target for Musk’s audits, revealing its deviation from initial purposes and involvement in domestic political conflicts, leading to its scrutiny.

USAID has underperformed in project evaluations, showing a gap between the funds allocated and the intended outcomes. The lack of successful cases and the political climate have led to public criticism. Musk’s scrutiny and potential downsizing spotlight the unique, emotionally-driven governance style of the Trump Administration, which prefers to tackle less critical, peripheral entities rather than major departments like the Department of Defense.

Ironically, cutting USAID, which since the Cold War has contributed indirectly, sometimes directly, to U.S. diplomacy, could cripple U.S. soft power strategy and dismantle the systems of indirect influence. This upheaval may necessitate substantial adjustments in personnel, budgets, and project execution, directly undermining decades of U.S. diplomatic strategy development under the guise of development aid.

There may be irreversible consequences for U.S. global hegemony. Should America indeed be preparing to retreat to regional dominance voluntarily, within current domestic political constraints, we may witness an American version of shock therapy—a concept we should watch closely to see how Musk’s involvement may alter this course.

Editor: Zhongxiaowen