Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the most significant examples of wasteful spending by USAID in 2024?
Executive Summary
Multiple Republican officials and the White House press office cited specific USAID expenditures in early 2025 as examples of wasteful or inappropriate spending, naming items such as pet supplies for Ukraine, DEI programs in Europe, cultural productions, and past projects like a Sesame Street initiative in Iraq [1] [2] [3]. Independent oversight reporting and USAID status updates raised broader concerns about oversight, partner vetting, and program terminations, but did not independently confirm every specific spending allegation [4] [5] [3].
1. How Senators and the White House Put Specific Line Items in the Spotlight
Senator Joni Ernst and others publicly listed multiple USAID expenditures to argue the agency misallocated funds, citing $300,000 for dog collars in Ukraine, $1 million for a carpet company, and $1 million linked to coronavirus work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, asserting these examples show priorities misaligned with U.S. national interests [1] [2]. The White House press secretary echoed specific examples in February 2025, calling out $1.5 million for DEI efforts in Serbia, $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland, and $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, framing them as poor uses of taxpayer dollars and evidence of agency waste [3]. These claims functioned politically to justify scrutiny and budgetary pressure on USAID, making discrete line items symbolic in wider debates over foreign aid.
2. What Independent Oversight Actually Documented about USAID’s Problems
Inspector General and internal USAID reporting documented oversight failures, limited partner vetting for ties to terrorism and corruption, and operational challenges preceding budget disruptions, but these reports focused on systemic weaknesses rather than proving each contested line item was improper [4]. A March 21, 2025 status update from USAID described active programs, terminated awards, and personnel changes, reflecting fiscal adjustments and program suspensions but not confirming political claims about specific purchases such as pet products or fashion junkets [5]. The oversight records corroborate that USAID faced vulnerabilities in accountability and program management, substantiating the broader critique even as they leave individual allegations to be validated case by case.
3. Timing and Political Context Changed How Spending Was Framed
The most prominent allegations surfaced in February 2025 amid Congressional debates over aid and agency funding, which shaped the framing of line items as emblematic of waste; political actors invoked smaller projects to argue for broader cuts or reforms [1] [3]. The White House and a Republican senator used overlapping lists of expenditures to advance differing agendas — accountability and fiscal restraint for critics, and defense of program missions for the administration — illustrating how the same spending items were repurposed for competing narratives [2] [3]. Timing matters: these examples gained traction because they were readily understandable to the public and useful in budget negotiations and oversight hearings.
4. Which Claims Are Confirmed by the Records Provided and Which Are Not
The publicly cited oversight updates confirm agency-level problems: insufficient vetting and programmatic risk that motivated scrutiny [4] [5]. However, the documentation at hand does not independently verify details of every contested purchase named in political statements — such as the exact amounts for dog collars, carpets, or the Wuhan Institute link — leaving those specific line-item claims unverified in the supplied records [1] [2] [3]. The gap between political allegation and audit-level confirmation shows why independent records and procurement files are necessary to adjudicate individual accusations of waste.
5. Why the Debate Matters for Oversight, Not Just Soundbites
The exchange illuminated a substantive governance issue: USAID’s need for stronger partner vetting, clearer procurement transparency, and prioritized program reviews, which oversight reports documented and which became central to reform proposals [4] [5]. Whether a single $70,000 cultural project or a larger multimillion-dollar initiative qualifies as “waste” depends on program intent, measurable outcomes, and procurement compliance — criteria that require documentary review beyond rhetorical claims [3]. Focusing on systemic fixes—contract controls, public procurement disclosure, and targeted audits—addresses root causes identified by inspectors and can reduce both genuine waste and politicized mischaracterizations.
6. Bottom Line: Verified Patterns, Unverified Line Items, and Next Steps for Accountability
Available materials show a verified pattern of oversight gaps and fiscal adjustments at USAID that justify audit-driven reforms, while specific politically highlighted purchases remain contested without direct corroboration in the oversight summaries provided [4] [5] [1]. To resolve disputed line-item claims, requesters should pursue procurement records, contract-level invoices, OIG audit reports, and Congressional hearing transcripts; those documents are the evidentiary means to move from allegation to verified finding. The contested 2024-2025 spending episodes therefore function as a call for transparency reforms that auditors and lawmakers can implement and test.