Countering Disinformation about USAID and its Rule of Law Programs

Although USAID has been almost entirely dismantled, disinformation concerning the effectiveness and importance of its mission continues to be disseminated, as epitomized by the July 31, 2025 interview that Ross Douthat of the New York Times conducted with Jeremy Lewin who now oversees all surviving USG international assistance. According to Mr. Lewin, USAID was an “unaccountable independent institution that was doing foreign policy and foreign assistance out of alignment with the national interest.” In order to counter such statements, here are some facts that AAROL supporters and others can use in their writings, presentations, and discussions concerning USAID and its rule of law (ROL) programming:   

• Claim: USAID’s work was out of alignment with American interests. For the past 30-plus years, the U.S. has supported democratic transitions overseas, including helping to create more independent and efficient judiciaries, educating future and sitting judges and lawyers, and improving access to justice for the underserved. USAID ROL programming also fostered respect for human rights, promoted ethics, countered corruption, and combatted trafficking in narcotics and persons. There programs aligned with America’s national interests because they fostered stable, peaceful, and economically developed countries that were less likely to engage in conflict with each other or the U.S. and would serve as better trading partners for American companies. They also offset the ambitions of authoritarian regimes such as those in Russia and China, which were the first to applaud USAID’s destruction. Many programs also addressed root causes of human migration, including to the U.S.   

• Claim: USAID’s implementing partners were unaccountable to the American public and were rife with fraud, waste, and abuse. U.S.-funded democracy and ROL programs were transparently administered through established not-for-profit organizations, such as ABA/CEELI, ABA/ROLI, the National Center for State Courts, and EWMI, as well as for-profit organizations such as Chemonics and Democracy International. These organizations had to compete and closely account for all funds received and expended, and were subject to annual external audits and regular performance evaluations. In addition to reporting to the USG, usually on a quarterly and annual basis, these organizations were overseen by executive boards that often included prominent American legal leaders, including Supreme Court justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer, all of whom were deeply involved in ABA programming. Many programs, starting with ABA/CEELI, also relied on pro bono contributions of American judges and lawyers. Greed was not a motivating factor, but volunteerism often was.

• Claim: USAID’s programs were part of a far-left agenda. To the contrary, USAID’s efforts received broad, bipartisan support in Congress and across administrations of both parties, including from both moderates and conservatives within the Republican Party—and from the current Secretary of State, when he was a senator. This reflected a consensus in both parties that democracy and the ROL are fundamental American values, and therefore those fighting for them overseas deserved our support. USAID’s ROL programs, moreover, were always linked to international standards and best practices in the areas of human rights protections, judicial independence, prosecutorial independence, court administration, legislative drafting, legal education, bar development, etc.

• Claim: USAID’s programs didn’t achieve their goals. Successes included helping transition scores of once communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe into free market economies and democracies that today are valuable trading partners and members of the European Union and NATO. These initiatives were also essential to bringing peace (though still fragile) to the Balkans and other regions. Although successes in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia have been more difficult to achieve, USAID’s ROL projects successfully raised awareness of the scourge of corruption and the need to support basic freedoms—such as freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other core human rights—all of which are at the heart of American legal values.

• Claim: No one will be hurt by the termination of USAID programming. The damage done by shuttering USAID’s health and famine relief programming is self-evident, but abandoning ROL and democracy programming also has direct and harmful consequences. The brave judges, lawyers, NGO leaders, and others who worked with USAID and its implementing partners in many partner countries are now left without the political protection that USG-supported programming provided. Governments in authoritarian or semi-authoritarian countries, moreover, are echoing the calumnies that the Administration is spreading about the work of USAID. As a result, our former partners, employees, and USAID staff in these countries are now exposed to potential prosecution and imprisonment, or at the very least cannot find employment in their home countries due to the supposed “taint” of having worked with USAID.

Although the U.S. faces many challenges at home, we have demonstrated at least since the Marshall Plan that it is in our enlightened self-interest to address international challenges before they metastasize into crises with domestic implications. Yes, USAID programming was provided with the generous support of the American people, but it also furthered America’s interests by promoting peace, prosperity, and respect for human rights around the globe. USAID accomplished all this and far more with only a tiny fraction of the budget—just 0.3% in 2024—an extraordinary return on investment. It is a noble mission that one day America will be called upon to return to.