Department of State Briefing on a Constitutional Crossroads
Rethinking U.S. Foreign Aid
On April 8th, 2025, I attended a Department of State listening session under Chatham House rules focused on Constitutional Perspectives on Foreign Assistance. The conversation raised timely and critical questions about how the United States conceptualizes, funds, and manages its foreign aid apparatus, particularly in the wake of shifting political priorities and a heightened call for transparency.
The Uneasy History of U.S. Foreign Aid
The session began by framing America’s legacy of foreign assistance as deeply tied to times of war. Historically, U.S. foreign aid spiked during periods of global conflict—World War II, the Cold War, and even the post-9/11 era—serving as both a soft power tool and a mechanism for rearming allies. U.S. banks and government-backed securities were often central to these efforts, enabling recovering nations to rebuild with the help of American capital. This strategy notably allowed the U.S. to place tariffs on imports while encouraging European allies to “earn” back their standing in global trade.
During the Cold War, USAID evolved from a rearmament mechanism into a broader tool for economic and political alignment. However, the 70s through the 90s saw USAID drift further from its original military and economic intentions, becoming more autonomous and increasingly tied to cultural diplomacy and development work, often without full governmental oversight.
What’s the Constitutional Concern?
A major issue raised during the session was the lack of clear constitutional checks and balances on foreign assistance. The President wields significant power to distribute aid, both through executive authority and statutory backing—yet no single office maintains full transparency or oversight, especially when foreign aid is split between defense, humanitarian, and economic development arms.
Participants voiced concerns that sanctions (used increasingly as a foreign policy tool) directly contradict the purpose of aid. Meanwhile, policy development often occurs in silos between NGOs, government staff, and think tanks, without a unified strategy or measurement of success. The core constitutional question becomes: Who is responsible for ensuring that foreign aid policy reflects the people's will, complies with constitutional constraints, and delivers real value to the U.S. and its partners?
Transparency in the Shadows
One repeated theme was opacity. Data on aid outcomes, budgets, and partnerships is notoriously fragmented. Questions like “Are we getting what we paid for?” or “How does policy and assistance actually interact?” were met with shrugs, suggesting a system that prioritizes form over function.
An example cited was the lack of back-and-forth between USAID and other federal agencies. Aid is often framed as a “loan package,” an economic and military toolkit to advance U.S. interests—but without clear feedback loops, it’s impossible to assess whether those interests are being met. Even well-intentioned initiatives like buying out education systems in Latin America face skepticism without clear evidence of success.
The Realignment Ahead
The session concluded with a call for a constitutional realignment of U.S. foreign aid. Transparency isn’t just a buzzword, it’s a demand. If America is to continue funding development abroad, the public must see a clear chain of accountability, from the Oval Office down to the field offices and local NGOs.
This isn’t a rejection of engagement; rather, it’s a demand for smarter engagement. Aid must be rooted in strategy, informed by local context, and accountable to both U.S. taxpayers and the communities it aims to serve.
Foreign aid isn’t just a budget line; aid is a reflection of our values, diplomacy, and power. Without reform, it risks becoming a relic of past wars, not a beacon of future peace.
This post is based on field notes from a closed-door listening session and reflects themes discussed under Chatham House rules.