Join the Alliance for American Leadership for a high-level conversation with Congressman James Walkinshaw, Co-Chair of the Federal Workforce Caucus, on the future of the U.S. Foreign Service.

​America’s presence on the world stage depends on the people behind our diplomacy. We will explore the critical need to protect a non-partisan, merit-based civil service and the role of institutional memory in safeguarding our national security. Featuring expert insights from AFSA, OneAID, and the USAID Alumni Association, this event is a must-attend for anyone passionate about the future of Global America.

Event Date: April 27, 4:45pm - 5:45pm (EST) via Google Meet

RSVP Here

The contraction of U.S. humanitarian assistance represents one of the most significant shifts in global aid policy in decades. While debates surrounding foreign aid often center on domestic trade-offs, the immediate and long-term consequences of these reductions extend far beyond budgetary considerations. Recent estimates suggest that these cuts have already begun to strain humanitarian systems and could contribute to severe increases in preventable mortality, including projections for over 14 million globally by 2030. 

Sudan’s 17% decline in humanitarian aid flows amid ongoing civil conflict and mass displacement illustrate how quickly these pressures translate into material consequences. Prior to the cuts, more than 7,000 community kitchens operated in Khartoum, providing daily meals to displaced populations. Today, over 95% of these kitchens have shut down, leaving millions without reliable access to food. At the same time, approximately 8 million people face immediate risk of starvation, and child malnutrition rates have reached levels ten times the emergency threshold. 

These developments highlight the role of humanitarian assistance within a broader support system that sustains basic services in fragile environments. Funding reductions affect food distribution networks, healthcare delivery, and other essential programs. For regions already experiencing conflict and institutional strain, the loss of support intensifies existing vulnerabilities.

Policy direction in the coming months may further reshape this landscape. According to an internal State Department email obtained by The Atlantic, reports indicate that U.S. humanitarian funding is expected to be phased out or redirected in multiple African countries as part of a broader strategic realignment. Many of these programs have been classified as lifesaving, raising questions about how the administration will manage transitions and whether alternative approaches will be sufficient. 

Public opinion poses another concern toward these pending changes. A 2025 Oxfam poll found that two out of three Americans, including nearly half of Republicans, opposed the initial large scale cuts to foreign aid. As policymakers reconsider the direction of U.S. development assistance, effective reform will depend not only on improving efficiency but also on preserving the stabilizing role that aid plays in fragile regions, partner economies, and domestic markets. 

Foreign assistance promotes domestic economic growth by creating investment and export opportunities for American businesses. Over the past decade, USAID has built more than 1,600 partnerships with private companies, universities, and diaspora communities. Significant reductions in funding risk undermining these benefits, especially when weighed against the human and economic costs of disrupting established development programs.

USAID not only fosters stability in foreign regions, but also safeguards the long-term security of the United States and its foreign partnerships. Ensuring that these reforms strengthen rather than weaken the systems that humanitarian assistance supports is the central policy challenge. Efforts to restructure aid must balance efficiency with continuity and recognize that the long-term costs of destabilization may outweigh the short-term gains of rapid retrenchment.

It was clear to many when cuts were made to USAID, an organization responsible for saving roughly 92 million lives in two decades, that lives were going to be lost. However, some chose not to look beyond the numbers to individual cases. For example, not many recognize the name Suza Kenyaba, a 5-year-old Congolese girl who died as malaria ravaged her body. Life-saving medicine that could've saved Suza was in a warehouse just 7 miles away, but wasn't distributed due to aid freezes. Another child and aspiring soccer player, Mohammed Hashim, died of starvation in Myanmar after the United States cut food aid to the region. Two weeks later, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared before Congress that “No one had died” due to foreign aid cuts, and that “No children are dying on my watch.” Mohammed Hashim’s father labeled these claims as blatant lies.

If these atrocities won’t motivate U.S. policymakers to reinstate aid that has historically accounted for less than 1% of the federal budget, I know something else that might: foreign competition. In 2025, China officially overtook the United States, the European Union, and even the African Union when it came to influence on the African continent. Additionally, for the first time in over 10 years, China is now seen as a more positive influence on the international arena as a whole than the United States. Going further, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, China has significantly outpaced the United States in foreign investment and assistance. From 2013 to 2022, China has spent over 679 billion dollars in nearly 150 countries, and in doing so, it has “expanded its influence globally, posing significant challenges to the United States’ economic, political, and security interests.” But China isn’t the only nation seeking to fill the gaping hole left by the United States; adversarial actors such as Russia, as well as allies such as France and Germany, are beginning to spread their influence where the United States no longer does so. The United States of America is retreating on the world stage, just as Beijing and others advance.

The United States’ most recent attempt to bolster international security came on the 28th of February with Operation Epic Fury, a military operation done in conjunction with the Israeli Defence Forces. So far, the Council for Strategic and International Studies estimates that the operation on Day 12 has cost the United States $16.5 billion from its start through March 12th. That means that in 12 days, the United States has used almost one-fifth of its 2024 foreign assistance total (82 billion dollars – 1.2% of the 6.75 trillion dollar 2024 FY budget). As a result of the operation, the Strait of Hormuz has been effectively shut, blocking nearly 20% of the world’s oil supply. In Los Angeles County, where I attend university, gas prices have hit almost $8 a gallon and at the time of writing average around $5.50 a gallon. After observing the adverse effects of military action in Iran, President Donald Trump recently called for aid in securing the Strait. He wrote on Truth Social, “The Countries of the World that ​receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage, and we will help — A LOT.” It is painfully clear that this current display of hard, militant power in the Middle East is harming both the purchasing power of American consumers and America’s global reputation, as nations such as South Korea, Germany, Australia, and Japan reject the President’s latest military aid request​. 

On the other hand, foreign aid, when structured correctly, has immense benefits that promote peace and domestic prosperity. It’s simple: foreign aid promotes peace, and peace saves people money. For example, for every $1.00 the US spends on international assistance to prevent conflict, it saves $16.00 on response costs. Recently, American representatives recognized the mistake they had made in cutting Food for Peace, a former USAID program that paid farmers for their surplus product, and sent it to regions abroad in need. As of February 3, the program was acquired by the United States Department of Agriculture and is now committed to “sending nearly 211,000 tons of U.S. agricultural goods to people in need in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, and Rwanda.” Another at-risk department, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), consistently generates $85 worth of U.S.-manufactured goods and services for every $1 they spend on priority development projects. Moreover, since the agency was established, it has brought about $56 billion worth of U.S. exports, while supporting 300,000 American jobs. The results speak for themselves: saving thousands of lives abroad helps improve millions of lives at home.

In order to get U.S. foreign aid back on the table, advocates should argue on strategic grounds. I’m not saying that the moral arguments behind foreign aid don’t still hold true–they do–what I’m saying is that they are no longer politically persuasive. The benefits of overseas aid have several advantageous effects on the U.S. economy, consumers, and producers. Advocates should use these benefits to their advantage. If foreign assistance is to survive in Washington, it must be understood as calculated, not charitable.

My Grandmother, Annie Kurian, had been hired by the Sisters of the Destitute, a Catholic nun's organization, as a local coordinator. Their convents across Kerala were the local implementers of a large-scale food aid program run by Catholic Relief Services, which distributed American supplies such as wheat, bulgur, oil, milk powder, and corn flour to mothers and children on behalf of USAID.

She would set out on foot through low-income neighborhoods, going house to house. Pregnant women and children under five were eligible to receive monthly supplies. Since these ingredients were unfamiliar in Kerala kitchens, my grandmother taught simple, practical recipes to families, showing them how to turn corn flour or bulgur into something they would actually want to eat. She herself had been trained by field officers from Rajagiri College of Social Sciences, social workers who had spent time figuring out how to translate these foreign commodities into locally acceptable meals that could actually raise nutrition levels.

This wasn't just charity. It was something communities depended on to stay healthy. The program ran for 20 years, and in that time, it helped a generation of children grow up rather than become casualties of malnutrition. My grandmother would sometimes cross paths with those same children years later, now adults, and they would recognize her immediately. Some offered her a free ride, others insisted she sit down and share a cup of tea.  She found it deeply rewarding to watch those kids find their niche in life and flourish.  It was a story that stayed with me, and somewhere in the telling of it, I knew I wanted to be a social worker like her.                                                                                       

I started connecting on LinkedIn with social scientists, field workers, and program officers who had worked for USAID and CRS worldwide. They turned up everywhere their programs had reached, from remote villages in sub-Saharan Africa that had been through civil war and were starting over, to communities in Asia that are still rebuilding after floods. Their stories were hard to miss. Interesting stories flooded my timeline, such as teams sleeping in tents to reach families cut off by earthquakes, and hiding during bomb threats. Aid workers stayed through epidemics when governments had already pulled out.

USAID was a leading force with hundreds of thousands of local nonprofits woven into the same fabric, doing the work on the ground. The more I read, the more I understood that what my grandmother had done in India was part of a vast, deliberately built structure.                                                     

Then, in February 2025, it all came apart. I didn't learn about the collapse of USAID from the news. I watched it unravel on LinkedIn. One day, my feed was full of program updates. The next, it was something else entirely. Shock and disbelief plagued my timeline, the kind of posts people write when they don't know what else to do. Senior officials who had spent entire careers fighting poverty and hunger announced they had been put on leave, then fired. Projects that had taken years to build were halted abruptly.

That's when Elon Musk wrote that they had spent the weekend 'feeding USAID into the wood chipper.' Every single person I had connected with, along with tens of thousands of their colleagues, was suddenly out of a job. The same LinkedIn feed that had introduced me to this vast, quiet network of people keeping the world from falling apart was now filled with termination notices, farewell posts, and halted programs.                                    

Now, in February 2026, we mark one year since USAID was dismantled. A 60-year-old institution, erased in a matter of weeks. It was sold to the public as a way to eliminate waste, but USAID funding accounted for less than 1% of the federal budget. It was a political decision dressed up as moral responsibility. The damage such a decision created already has a body count.

In Kenya, where USAID had invested $436 million in a single year, roughly 40,000 jobs vanished overnight. In the Kakuma refugee camp, the failure to renew a $112 million World Food Program grant led to rations being at their lowest levels. In Ethiopia, nearly 16 million people had relied on donated grain in 2024, and half the country's children were already malnourished when the funding stopped.

In Afghanistan, over half the population was already facing food insecurity before the cuts. More than three million children under five were at risk of acute malnutrition. When 80% of USAID programs were canceled, the most desperate families were left with nothing.

These are not projections from a distant future. They are already happening, country by country, camp by camp, child by child. A major analysis published in The Lancet estimated that the continued termination of USAID could result in 14 million additional deaths worldwide by 2030. This includes 4.5 million children under five. Most Americans, if they knew, would be unwilling to accept responsibility for this.

Last week, Congress passed a $50.16 billion FY2026 Foreign Affairs Bill, approving $1.2 billion for Food for Peace and $720 million for Feed the Future. These funds serve as a long-overdue acknowledgment of the suffering felt across the globe during this last year of USAID’s absence. But a funding bill is not the same as an institution. Congress must ensure that the State Department and USDA will employ professionals to design and manage these programs. Rebuilding is also an opportunity to design something better and more direct.          

Introduction

Foreign aid is an integral component of U.S. international development policy. However, the mechanism for its implementation has been scrutinized. While traditional government-to-government aid is often criticized for its inefficiency, the shift towards a Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) has introduced a new vulnerability: strategic withdrawal. This occurs through market volatility, which causes private entities to exit high-need regions during the crisis, undermining aid efficiency. Foreign aid is most effective when used to build market-supporting institutions that stabilize investment environments, allowing Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to operate as durable mechanisms for development rather than fragile responses to crisis. 

Strategic Withdrawal in Public-Private Partnerships

A prominent issue in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) within developing nations is the timing of capital withdrawal. Ideally, a strategic withdrawal–the early termination of a franchise contract before its expiration–should occur the moment marginal revenue (MR) falls below marginal cost (MC). However, investors often fail to exit strategically due to Escalation of Commitment (EOC). This is an irrational, defensive behavior in which decision-makers continue to pour resources into a failing project to justify sunk costs and past investments. While a rational exit is triggered by low ROI or insufficient cash flow to prevent further financial loss, EOC traps investors in a cycle of reinvestment. From a macro perspective, failing to execute a timely exit strategy can transform a win-win partnership into a lose-lose scenario, causing long-term harm to local employment and tax revenue in the host country.

Market Volatility and Crisis-Driven Capital Flight

This strategic withdrawal occurs when private-sector partners or investors withdraw from a development project or a specific region amid a crisis, volatility, or heightened risk. It is classified as strategic because, from the private entity's perspective, it is the rational move to minimize losses; however, from a development perspective, it leads to a catastrophic failure of the aid mechanism. This withdrawal occurs when Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) lack the institutional "glue" to hold them together during shocks. When a high-need region experiences a recession, political instability, or a currency crisis, private entities often exit due to risk adjustments, a lack of social safety nets, and inadequate commitment to technology. A similar pattern occurred during the 2001-2002 Argentine Economic Crisis, when several privatized infrastructure concessions were renegotiated or saw investor withdrawals amid rising economic volatility. When strategic withdrawal occurs, it creates a negative feedback loop that deepens the crisis. Private capital exits exactly when economies need it most, accelerating economic collapse. In these moments, PPP-based aid effectively becomes zero-efficiency.

Institutional Foundations of Market Stability

Dani Rodrik discusses what constitutes high-quality growth for institutions and how to achieve it. He highlights how participatory democracies and institutions of conflict management make an economy more shock-resilient. Strategic withdrawal is a direct result of attempting to implement Market-Based solutions (PPPs) without first using aid to build Non-Market institutions. Because markets are inherently susceptible to destabilization, implementing a market-based PPP without first establishing a robust judicial and social safety net is akin to building a house without a foundation; it is destined to collapse at the first sign of economic instability. The Judicial Net is the legal glue necessary for long-term commitment. It is the insurance policy for private capital, guaranteeing that contracts are honored and property rights are protected even when a government is under extreme financial pressure. The Social Net is the "market legitimacy", and prevents the lose-lose scenario by shielding the public from the full brunt of market volatility. Underpinning these broader safety nets are five specific market-supporting institutions that provide the structural integrity for high-quality growth: property rights, regulatory oversight, macroeconomic stabilization, social insurance, and conflict management. The Judicial Safety Net includes the property rights and regulatory institutions, and the Social Safety Net includes Social Insurance and Macroeconomic Stabilization.

 Rodrik's core tenet is that the rejuvenation of private-sector activity is unfeasible without the state. The state ( via foreign aid) must build infrastructure and human capital–the safety nets described–to make private investment viable. Often, privatized foreign aid does not work because private investment fails when productivity bottlenecks exist. These bottlenecks occur because private investors (and aid-funded projects) require predictability. If aid is given to industries, it does not help, as bottlenecks remain. It would be like putting a fast car on a road full of giant potholes. However, when aid is used to build roads and schools (state functions), it clears bottlenecks. Once the road is paved, private companies will want to drive their "cars" on it, leading to a surge in private investment.  Autocracies (which lack the market-supporting institutions mentioned) produce unpredictable outcomes, whereas democracies (which use participatory institutions to manage conflicts) produce stable outcomes.

Aid as a Catalyst for Institutional Development

Therefore, aid is most effective when used to move a country from the "risky" to the "stable" category by building these institutions. You cannot have a successful private market without a functioning state. The state provides the "pipes" (roads, schools, laws), and the private sector provides the "water" (investment). If the pipes are blocked (bottlenecks), the water cannot flow. This means private companies (PPPs) cannot operate in a vacuum. They need the state to provide the "pipes" (infrastructure, healthy workers). Aid functions as a catalyst for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and market-supporting institutions only when it is designed to complement, rather than displace, local state capacity. The Uganda Institutional Capacity Building Project of 1995, funded by the International Development Association, illustrates the importance and limitations of institutional reform. The project successfully established critical market-supporting institutions, such as the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda. However, it lacked the market-integrated mechanisms to translate these reforms into sustained private-sector investment. This confirms why the hybrid aid model is imperative: institutional building must be coupled with durable, outcomes-linked PPP mechanisms that treat the private sector not as a project beneficiary, but as a long-term partner in governance.

 When aid bypasses the state or "poaches" its critical human resources–it undermines the structural integrity of the very institutions required for private investment. This failure exacerbates the Strategic Withdrawal problem, where investors rationally abandon markets during periods of high volatility. Aid that strengthens participatory, bottom-up institutions provides the stability that private capital requires.

Political Institutions and Economic Volatility

Growth in autocracies is nearly twice as volatile as in democracies, with a coefficient of variation ranging from 1.05 to 0.54; higher values indicate greater volatility and lower values indicate less volatility. In the absence of institutional foundations, volatility is 100% higher. This confirms the point about the "Strategic Withdrawal" problem: if you are a private investor, an economy with this level of volatility is a dangerous place to leave your money. In democracies with a coefficient of variation of 0.54, democratic growth is significantly more stable. Consistent with the findings from Jones and Tarp (2016), low-frequency stable governance aid–rather than total aggregate aid–builds the institutional framework necessary for stability and mitigating "Strategic Withdrawal" of private investment.

By following the evidence that stable governance strengthens institutions, we can discern it as the primary mechanism for "crowding in" private investment. By mitigating the structural weaknesses that trigger the "Strategic Withdrawal" of capital, this aid transforms a volatile, high-risk economy into one where PPPs can be successfully utilized to deliver public services.

Consequently, a hybrid aid model offers a more stable framework for development policy. When foreign aid is directed toward building institutional capacity–such as legal systems, regulatory oversight, and social safety nets–it strengthens the structural foundation of an economy. Stronger institutions reduce volatility and create the stability necessary for sustained investment. As volatility decreases, the likelihood of strategic withdrawal by private actors diminishes, allowing Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to operate more reliably. From this, aid does not replace market mechanisms but instead provides the institutional foundation that enables PPPs to function as durable instruments of development rather than fragile responses to crisis.

Policy Recommendations

1. Prioritize institutional capacity in foreign aid. My primary policy recommendation is to establish technical planning bureaus within the State Department, mirroring the functional expertise once embedded within USAID. This is not merely a bureaucratic preference; it is a structural necessity to prevent 'poaching'. By utilizing sector-specific experts in health, agriculture, and economic development, the State Department can transition from a 'donor-as-contractor' (transactional, restrictive) model to a 'donor-as-partner' (relational, engaged) model. These technical bureaus will be charged with identifying and bolstering existing local administrative frameworks. By designing interventions that serve as a 'plug-in' to local systems rather than a replacement for them, we mitigate the risk of depleting local human capital, thereby creating the stable, reliable institutional foundations required to prevent the Strategic Withdrawal of private capital.

2. Align PPP development with governance stability. To align PPP development with governance stability, the government should establish a centralized PPP unit, staffed with a triad of legal, financial, and technical experts to oversee project lifecycles and insulate them from short-term political volatility. This institutional foundation should be paired with mandatory transparency regarding PPP costs and contingent liabilities within the national budget, alongside the adoption of competitive, open-procurement standards to curb corruption. By ensuring that all projects undergo rigorous strategic assessments aligned with long-term national development goals, the government creates an environment that mitigates investment risks and curbs capital flight. This governance-first approach directly supports objectives related to U.S. foreign aid–specifically the Journey to Self-Reliance–by signaling to international partners and investors that the country is a predictable, transparent, and bankable destination for sustainable, long-term private capital.

3. Use aid to reduce structural bottlenecks. Foreign aid must pivot from a narrow focus on regulatory reform toward addressing the fundamental structural bottlenecks that hinder development. Drawing on the 'pipes and water' framework, it is recognized that the private sector is the central engine of structural transformation; however, it cannot operate without the state providing the necessary foundation. Therefore, foreign aid should be strategically deployed to alleviate the two most critical constraints to this growth: infrastructure (energy, transport, and digital connectivity that businesses need to operate efficiently) and skills (developing human capital necessary to move workers from low-productivity roles like subsistence farming to high-productivity roles like manufacturing or tradable services). A revised aid strategy must move beyond general support to target specific, high-impact interventions–such as promoting non-traditional exports, facilitating industrial agglomerations, building firm-level capabilities, and strengthening regional integration-thereby creating the enabling environment required for sustainable, private-sector-led development.

Mitigation and Risks

Addressing the mitigation and risk aspects of inefficiency and corruption, I propose these primary safeguards: scaling up the operational and financial management capacity of Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to serve as oversight buffers for complex projects. Then, all infrastructure aid must be tied to independent, performance-based monitoring–prioritizing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Key Performance Measures (KPMs) that track tangible service improvements such as reduced electricity downtime and lower transit times, rather than simply measuring the completion of construction contracts. KPIs should define the service outcomes expected from aid-funded infrastructure, while KPMs track the specific metrics used to evaluate whether those indicators are being achieved. By conditioning aid on these outcome-oriented metrics, this ensures that investments deliver real-world economic utility rather than merely serving as capital expenditure.

Conclusion

Foreign aid is effective through strengthening the institutional foundations necessary for stable economic development. When foreign aid is contingent on market-based mechanisms such as Public-Private-Partnerships without first establishing robust governance institutions, it risks triggering Strategic Withdrawal during a period of economic volatility. As investors exit fragile markets amid heightened risk, development initiatives collapse precisely when they are needed most. Foreign aid should prioritize the construction of market-supporting institutions–including legal systems, regulatory oversight, and social safety nets-before expecting private capital to sustain development outcomes. The hybrid aid model can help governments reduce volatility and create an environment in which long-term investment becomes viable. In this, foreign aid can transition from a fragile, crisis-driven intervention to a durable mechanism for sustainable economic development.

The hearing, titled “Breaking Government: How DOGE and Trump Damaged Federal Workers and Public Services, and How We Fix It,” featured testimony from lawmakers, former inspectors general, union leaders, legal experts, and current and former federal employees. The discussion centered on workforce reductions, oversight challenges, and the long-term effects on public services and global development programs.

Members of Congress present included Ranking Member Robert Garcia (CA-42) and Representatives James Walkinshaw (VA-11), Suhas Subramanyam (VA-10), Eugene Vindman (VA-7), Emily Randall (WA-6), Don Beyer (VA-8), and Glenn Ivey (MD-4).

In his opening remarks, Ranking Member Robert Garcia argued that DOGE had “failed to eliminate waste” and instead “made the government less efficient.” He raised concerns about disruptions to Social Security services, veterans’ care, and USAID. “With what happened with USAID, they left millions of people to die,” Garcia said, emphasizing the global humanitarian consequences of stalled aid.

Representative Suhas Subramanyam highlighted the scale of federal workforce attrition, noting that more than 317,000 employees have departed government service and that the loss includes an estimated 160,000 years of PhD-level experience. “We are here today because of what happened to the federal workforce and what continues to happen to the federal workforce and contractors,” he said, calling the protection of career civil servants a bipartisan issue.

Representative James Walkinshaw, whose Virginia district includes more than 11,000 federal employees, described the long-term implications of politicizing public service. “For the past year, you have been on the frontlines of efforts to damage civil service,” he said, underscoring the need to recruit, retain, and support public servants. Walkinshaw also referenced weakened capacity at agencies, including NOAA and USAID, and the impact on Social Security processing and veterans’ benefits.

Expert witnesses detailed legal, fiscal, and governance concerns.

Rob Shriver of Democracy Forward testified that his organization has filed 400 legal actions since the inauguration and secured more than 100 favorable court rulings related to federal workforce protections. He cited the loss of an estimated 4 million years of institutional knowledge and described deferred retirements costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

Krista Boyd, former Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), testified about oversight disruptions and concerns regarding access to sensitive federal employee data. She stated that in fiscal year 2024, OPM’s Office of Inspector General identified over $300 million in potential savings before leadership changes occurred.

Faith Williams of the Project on Government Oversight warned that weakening merit-based civil service protections and oversight mechanisms could have long-lasting effects. “Rigorous oversight,” she emphasized, is essential to ensuring government serves the public interest rather than narrow political or financial interests.

Doreen Greenwald, President of the National Treasury Employees Union, described what she characterized as “baseless attacks” on federal employees and reported that many workers felt pressured to resign or accept administrative leave. She noted that agencies responsible for significant federal revenue collection experienced substantial staffing losses, with consequences for public service delivery.

Former Representative Barbara Comstock of Virginia offered a bipartisan perspective, acknowledging the toll on federal workers and emphasizing the importance of restoring stability and professionalism to government service.

In recorded testimony, current and former federal employees described layoffs affecting disaster response, clinical research, foreign assistance operations, and whistleblower protections. One NIH employee detailed the disruption of Alzheimer’s clinical trials, while a former USAID staff member described emergency evacuations during field assignments. Others recounted halted FEMA helplines during the Texas floods and prolonged administrative leave without clear guidance.

Throughout the hearing, members of Congress underscored the importance of constitutional governance, whistleblower protections, and transparency. Representative Eugene Vindman called for strengthening Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) enforcement to ensure accountability moving forward.

Cary Dornier, a volunteer at the Alliance for American Leadership who attended the hearing, stated:

“Today’s hearing brought a much-needed spotlight on the decimation of the federal workforce and the very real consequences on the strength and safety of our country and on the lives of brave public servants who have been needlessly denigrated. Thank you to the witnesses and Oversight Committee Democrats for standing up for the humans who make our government work and for the essential role of international assistance in creating a safer world.”

The Alliance for American Leadership, founded after USAID was dismantled, works to build public support for global development. Many of its members have served in or alongside federal agencies, including USAID. 

Asher Moss, Executive Director of the Alliance for American Leadership, emphasized the organization’s non-partisan mission:

“We appreciate Congressman James Walkinshaw for convening a substantive discussion on the future of the federal workforce and U.S. humanitarian leadership. Oversight and accountability are essential regardless of party, and restoring a professional, merit-based civil service must be a national priority.”

The full hearing can be viewed on the Oversight Democrats’ official YouTube channel.

###

Media Contact:

Olivia Weaver-Thomas

Deputy Communications Director

Alliance for American Leadership

Amanda Green is running for Congress in Florida’s 2nd District—an R+8 seat. And she’s not shying away from international assistance. Why? Because 72% of Republican voters support it.

Green is willing to put the issue front and center, making the case for USAID clearly and unapologetically. Watch her discuss it in the video below.

The Alliance for American Leadership PAC is proud to support her campaign.

Explore poll results showing strong American support for international assistance programs, highlighting public backing for global aid and U.S. leadership.

Originally published on February 11, 2026 as a post on LinkedIn

In 2025, that architecture was effectively gutted. A sweeping executive freeze terminated nearly 97% of USAID's democracy and governance awards, totaling over $14 billion in cancelled programming that had been designed to support democratic processes and institutions. Despite the current administration's stated aim of achieving "efficiency," this drastic reduction led to the removal of the very personnel who were instrumental in ensuring transparency and combating corruption in foreign governments. The long-term implications of these cuts could severely undermine democratic progress, freedoms, and stability in regions that rely on the United States support for governance and reform. The 2025 USCIRF report highlights that the reduction in U.S. engagement has left religious minorities and human rights defenders more vulnerable to state-backed persecution.

The Balkans Case Study: Trading Aid for Assets

Nowhere is this shift more visible than in the Western Balkans. As the U.S. government withdrew its funding for Serbian civil society, a different kind of investment arrived.

• The Belgrade Hand-Off: Just as USAID’s anti-corruption oversight was zeroed out, Jared Kushner’s firm, Affinity Partners, secured a 99-year lease on the historic Yugoslav Army HQ. Serbian lawmakers even passed a special "Lex Specialis" law in November 2025 to fast-track the $500 million luxury project, bypassing traditional heritage protections.

• The Albanian "Strategic Investor": In Albania, a $1.4 billion luxury resort on Sazan Island was granted "strategic investor" status by the government—a designation that offers zero taxes during construction and fast-tracked permits—right as U.S. judicial reform programs were suspended.

The Pay-to-Play Problem

The Senate Finance Committee revealed shocking figures. Affinity Partners, wholly owned by Jared Kushner, has accumulated around $157 million in management fees from foreign sovereign wealth funds, including $87 million from the Saudi government alone, yet has zero return on investment for its clients by late 2025. When a family-affiliated business earns millions in fees from foreign governments while those governments are being exempted from USAID oversight, the 'America First' motto begins to resemble a 'Family First'.

The Moral Leadership Gap

The public is catching on. A January 2026 Marist Poll shows that 57% of Americans believe the nation's international role has been weakened. Transparency International recently noted that the gutting of overseas aid has "weakened global anticorruption efforts," with the U.S. corruption perception score dropping as a result.

Reclaiming Accountability

Leadership is about building institutions that serve the public, not portfolios that serve the powerful. If the goal of dismantling USAID was to prevent "waste," we must ask why we’ve created a system that is far less transparent and far more prone to conflict of interest.

It’s time to demand that our foreign policy isn't for sale. We need to restore the oversight that protects both American values and American taxpayers.

As a Chaldean-Assyrian American born at the start of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq to immigrant parents, politics has always surrounded me. I have the wry amusement of being a member of a target demographic in a swing state (Michigan). Conversely, I’m privileged to intern alongside other young adults at the Alliance 4 American Leadership (A4AL), a nonpartisan PAC working to reform foreign assistance and bring America back to the global stage. I keep living in a state of déjà vu on foreign policy: I call the isolation-intervention pendulum. It’s the sociopolitical swing between expansive intervention and calls for isolation. When the ideological movement reverses course, it often abandons prior foreign commitments, leaving societies we intervened in worse off. As a country, we need to replace this pendulum with a principled, long-term foreign policy that defends national security, the US, the global economy, and human dignity. A plan as a country that pressures our government, without resorting to reckless regime change or reflexive isolation.
The main example that comes to mind is the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The George W. Bush administration launched the war under the alleged pretenses that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and links to Al-Qaeda. The invasion created a power vacuum and led to war crimes like Abu Ghraib (the torture and abuse of prisoners by Army members), Mahmudiyah (the gang rape of a 14-year-old and the murder of her entire family), and Haditha (25 unarmed civilians of all ages and genders killed by Marines at close range).

The war grew unpopular, and the controversy and pretenses swung the pendulum away from globalism towards isolation. President Barack Obama withdrew troops in 2011, and 75% of Americans, including nearly half of Republicans, approved the decision. This caused yet another power vacuum and several genocides. This includes my ethnic group, the Shia communities (compared to ISIS, who were in Iraq’s Sunni minority sect of Islam), and the Yezidis (a Kurdish-speaking ethnoreligious group who were and are still victims of sexual slavery and undiscovered burials). These genocides, perpetrated by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, better known as ISIS, were fueled by sectarianism, deepened after the U.S. invasion, years of foreign intervention, and the policies of Prime Minister Nouri al‑Maliki’s post‑invasion administration.
In the 2016 Republican Primaries, Donald Trump leveraged the Iraq Invasion against Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (related to George W. Bush) to fuel his campaign. However, this swing to isolation isn’t as clear-cut. Even though President Trump became the face of the America First agenda, known for its populist sentiments and withdrawing from foreign conflicts, he voiced support for the Iraq Invasion in 2002. Not to mention, the pendulum swinging back in favor of intervention, where the Second Trump Administration bombed Iran, captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and seized Venezuelan oil tankers showing adjacency to the Iraq Invasion. My explanation for why the pendulum swung back is the economic gain that can’t otherwise be achieved at home, strong reactions and fears that an adversary could gain further influence, and populism, with border security and narcotics trafficking as key issues.
The pendulum repeats itself.

The US should:

• Support people at home and abroad, as neither can be separated nor put into a clear-cut binary.

• Defend allies from foreign adversaries who threaten our national security.

• Avoid regime-change campaigns that damage our long-term credibility and global standing.

• Avoid complicity and refuse to provide financial or military assistance to countries that commit or worsen global atrocities and humanitarian emergencies.

As Americans in our current economic state, I understand how helping other countries seems counterintuitive. However, the pendulum and the failure to develop a new foreign policy plan affect us as a country. Failing to implement a new plan perpetuates the status quo of ineffective leadership, allowing our foreign adversaries to win by increasing their credibility and soft power through aid and further anti-American stances toward countries in need, raising the possibility of future attacks. It affects our economy and agriculture at home and abroad; at my alma mater, Michigan State University, more than $ 20 million in funding was cut. This resulted in 47 Malawian students’ university scholarships (their only option to attend university) no longer being paid, and in effective American agricultural research on warm-climate and disease-resistant foods. This includes potatoes, where MSU, a university historically known for agriculture, was working with farmers in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kenya, and Nigeria to prevent blight. That’s current and future jobs lost, connections and partnerships lost, and a cost in technological advancements made in America. Not achieving a new foreign policy plan costs the lives of those dying of warfare and preventable diseases that hold no borders, like COVID-19, ending in the US and pausing the world in March 2020. It causes people to leave their homeland when they otherwise wouldn’t at the cost of US resources. Specifically, for every dollar invested in conflict prevention, $16 is saved in future, more expensive humanitarian or security responses. This is despite foreign assistance making up less than 1% of federal funding.

The US needs a new foreign policy plan, not a pendulum. This pendulum has cost lives and credibility; it’s time to stop swinging a pendulum we've seen our entire lives. It’s time for a durable foreign policy framework balancing security, human rights, and multilateral cooperation.

Neal Dunn Dropped Out of the Race Tuesday and Democrats Are Eyeing the Seat as a Potential Pickup

A bipartisan political action committee focused on strengthening global development programs is throwing its support behind Amanda Marie Green’s bid to be the Democratic nominee for Florida’s 2nd Congressional District.

“Humanitarian aid isn’t just about the United States stepping up as a global leader or saving lives abroad. It’s a proven, cost-effective strategy for preventing violent extremism, stopping health threats before they reach our borders, reducing forced migration, and disrupting fentanyl trafficking. It also strengthens global supply chains and opens international markets for American farmers in our district,” said Amanda.

Amanda Marie Green has spent her career working alongside USAID with its largest implementing partner to distribute lifesaving food, medicine, and technology to the world’s most vulnerable communities. She was recruited by Chemonics International while working on her master’s degrees in international affairs from Florida State University (FSU).

Cuts to humanitarian assistance have hit Florida’s 2nd District especially hard, because so much of that aid is produced there. FSU, located in the district, lost a $25 million contract focused on basic education after USAID was shut down. Additionally, USAID had been purchasing 2.2 billion pounds of produce a year from American farmers, including those in North Florida, to distribute to children abroad facing starvation and famine.

Amanda Marie Green has committed to supporting congressional efforts to allocate two percent of the federal budget to diplomacy and global development programs, noting the importance of building up soft power to complement defense spending and keep Americans safe.

“The stronger our diplomacy, the less likely we are to enter unnecessary wars or risk our troops' lives.” Amanda said, “Coming from a military family, this is paramount to me.”

Michael Belitzky, the Chief Strategy Officer at the PAC and a constituent of FL-2 said, “Now, more than ever, Congress needs strong leaders who understand the importance of American leadership on the world stage. Strategic humanitarian aid is paramount to our national security and benefits every American at home and abroad. Amanda is a doer, and knows how the recent cuts to humanitarian aid have impacted the local economy, especially agriculture. She will bring practical solutions and deliver results for her constituents. I am proud to support Amanda and offer her A4AL’s endorsement.”

Rep. Neal Dunn, R-Fla., announced Tuesday that he will not seek re-election, saying in a statement that he plans to step away from Congress after five terms.

Evan Power is “strongly considering” a run for the Republican primary. Speaking to reporters at the Florida Capitol, the chair of the Republican Party of Florida shared his intention to run for the seat, suggesting, however, that people should ‘hold their horses’ on the matter.

CD 2 consists of the eastern part of the Florida Panhandle along with much of the Big Bend region along the Emerald Coast. It includes Tallahassee and Panama City. With 49% of its residents living in rural areas, it is the least urbanized district in the state

The district has a Cook Partisan Voting Index rating of R+8. Now that there is no incumbent in the race, Democrats are eyeing the district as a potential pickup opportunity.

The 2026 Primary is Aug. 18, followed by the General Election on Nov. 3.