If America’s humanitarian aid system were a business, it would have collapsed long ago. No enterprise — public or private — can sustain itself without demonstrating value, yet for decades, the U.S. Agency for International Development has expanded unchecked, insulated from the accountability that defines a market-driven world.
As a result of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency review, USAID was formally dismantled, with its remnants absorbed into the State Department. The review laid bare an imperious bureaucracy adrift from its core mission. Even the Cato Institute — a steadfast proponent of limited government — endorsed its closure, calling it “a good idea,” bluntly stating that “foreign assistance is not accomplishing its goals.”
Then came USAID’s own reckoning. In August 2024, an Inspector General’s report confirmed what critics long suspected — systemic due diligence failures had left billions in taxpayer dollars flowing through a system with little control, inadequate oversight and no clear accounting of how funds were ultimately spent.
Among the most glaring concerns: the unchecked influence of public international organizations, including the United Nations, World Bank, UNICEF and World Food Program. These entities collectively administer vast sums of U.S. aid with minimal accountability and little measurable impact.
For much of its history, USAID wielded enormous influence over global aid policy, directing billions in taxpayer-funded assistance. But its decline was neither sudden nor unforeseeable.
What had once functioned as a humanitarian lifeline has become a labyrinth of misallocated resources, favoring broad, abstract development theories over measurable results. This shift has diluted accountability, misdirected funding and allowed wasteful programs to flourish under the banner of long-term, unverifiable goals.
For years, these inefficiencies were shielded by institutional inertia and entrenched interests. That illusion collapsed in Haiti, Afghanistan and Gaza where U.S. and public international organization-led humanitarian and development efforts failed spectacularly, exposing a model that is expensive, ineffective, and impervious to meaningful reform.
The DOGE review has pulled back the curtain, revealing a system where waste is endemic, oversight is weak, and measurable outcomes are an afterthought.
Humanitarian aid has long reflected the best of American values — compassion, leadership and a commitment to helping those in crisis. U.S. assistance has saved lives, responded to disasters and reinforced global partnerships.
But the era of unchecked spending is over. With $60 billion in global aid commitments at stake, the question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether there is the political will to dismantle a broken system and rebuild one that is accountable, results-driven, and responsive to actual humanitarian needs.
The solution is not to abandon humanitarian aid but to rethink how it is delivered. This begins with reducing America’s dependence on public international organizations and shifting toward leaner, more results-driven partnerships. The United Nations, for example, is seeking $47 billion for humanitarian aid in 2025 and USAID administers billions more — yet their impact remains largely unverifiable.
A transition toward bilateral agreements — reducing reliance on organizations — could significantly increase oversight and efficiency. USAID already administers bilateral aid programs, yet too much funding flows through large multilateral agencies with minimal competition or transparency. Redirecting even a fraction of this funding to competitively bid, bilateral initiatives could reduce waste by 10-15 percent, ensure more effective aid, and tighten financial oversight.
For too long, humanitarian programs have been measured by how much aid is distributed rather than its actual impact. Counting meals delivered, tents distributed or vaccines administered is not enough.
The key question should be: Is hunger decreasing? Are displaced populations stabilizing? Are health interventions leading to lasting improvements? If an aid program cannot demonstrate meaningful, measurable results, it should no longer receive U.S. funding.
Achieving this requires a fundamental shift in monitoring and evaluation. The necessary tools are readily available — they are just not being used.
Predictive analytics, already used in finance, healthcare and public policy — can forecast trends, detect inefficiencies and optimize decisions in real-time. Blockchain can track financial transactions with precision, AI can assess program efficiency in real-time and independent audits can verify whether aid is reaching its intended recipients.
These technologies are seamlessly integrated into finance, logistics, and supply chain management — so why are they not the standard in foreign aid?
However, numbers alone don’t tell the full story. A rigorous approach must integrate both quantitative metrics to track progress and qualitative research to capture local realities, ensuring that aid strategies are informed by both hard data and human experience.
These methods exist today but remain underutilized in aid programs. Applying them effectively would ensure accountability and deliver actual results.
Real-time oversight allows aid programs to detect inefficiencies early, make agile adjustments and prevent systemic waste — rather than conducting post-mortem assessments after failure has already set in. The funding for monitoring and evaluation is already in place; the issue isn’t cost, but competence.
We don’t need more reports, audits, or bureaucratic oversight — we need a monitoring and evaluation system that delivers results. Making this the new standard will not only refine metrics — it will redefine culture.
Congress must reclaim its oversight role and mandate independent, data-driven accountability audits across all U.S. foreign aid programs. The blind trust must end.
Every dollar must be tracked, every program scrutinized, and every outcome measured — not by the agencies spending the money, but by independent monitors ensuring transparency and effectiveness. Without rigorous oversight, inefficiency will persist, and waste will remain the cost of complacency.
Congress faces a choice: Preserve an outdated, opaque system riddled with inefficiency, or forge a leaner, results-driven model that actually serves those in need. The time for reform is not tomorrow — it’s now.
Ron MacCammon is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces colonel and former political officer with the Department of State. He has extensive experience in Latin America and Afghanistan and taught International Relations at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
