- USAID is facing heightened political scrutiny, with right-leaning media advocating for its elimination and left-leaning outlets fact-checking claims to justify its existence. The debate revolves around funding for controversial programs, including gender-affirming healthcare and alleged indirect support for Hamas.
- Reports from conservative and liberal news sources present conflicting narratives on the agency’s oversight and spending priorities.
- While some USAID programs remain operational, legal battles and media framing continue to shape public perception over whether USAID is necessary.
Full Story
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is at the center of political controversy, with large portions of its spending facing scrutiny from right-leaning media outlets. The political right has called for the agency’s elimination, while left-leaning media outlets are fact-checking the spending claims, with the political left arguing in favor of preserving the agency.
As the debate intensifies, conflicting narratives from both sides shape public perception. This report examines key talking points from both perspectives and presents the facts surrounding USAID’s funding.
Senator, CBS anchor clash over USAID spending
Sunday’s episode of Face the Nation highlighted the growing divide over USAID. While speaking on CBS, an outlet identified as left-leaning by AllSides, Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., criticized USAID’s spending, citing specific programs he deemed wasteful or dangerous. The program’s host, Margaret Brennan, challenged his claims, labeling them as “false.”
“USAID has been out of control.,” Hagerty said. “I have demanded accountability out of USAID and they have refused it. As an appropriator, I’ve asked them to be very clear about – for example, their role funding Hamas and Gaza. They will not tell us what they do. Now that we start to find out some of the programs USAID has been funding – think about it, sex changes in Guatemala. LGBTQ programs in Serbia. This is ridiculous.”
“The U.S. does not fund sex change operations or fund Hamas,” Brennan contested.
Left-leaning outlets publish fact checks
One of the primary disputes centers on USAID’s alleged funding of sex-change operations in Guatemala. Brennan asserted this claim was false, and multiple left-leaning outlets, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, published fact-check reports on the matter.
The New York Times examined White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s claim that a $2 million USAID grant was allocated for gender-affirming surgeries in Guatemala. The outlet described the claim as “exaggerated” and noted that the grant supported gender-affirming healthcare broadly, encompassing services such as hormone therapy, counseling, hair removal and speech therapy.
“It remains unclear how much, if any, of the funding directly covered surgical interventions,” the Times report said.
Similarly, The Washington Post described the claim as “misleading,” suggesting that the grant was intended “to support trans-led organizations delivering gender-affirming healthcare” rather than funding sex-change surgeries outright.
Federal spending records confirm the $2 million award, with $350,000 already spent. While there is no itemized breakdown, the money was given to a Guatemalan group that assists with gender transitions.
Other USAID grants under scrutiny
Beyond the Guatemala grant, USAID has come under fire for additional spending. Some of the more high-profile grants include:
Right-leaning outlets criticized this expenditure as wasteful, while left-leaning sources justified it as an educational tool promoting health and peace in a region affected by extremism.
“It’s a show that helps teach values, helps teach public health, helps prevent kids from dying from disease and helps push values like collaboration, peacefulness, cooperation. Its pennies on the dollar,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Conn., told CNN.
“They spent a whopping 20 million on a Sesame Street show in Iraq,” Fox News’ Sean Hannity said reading a list of USAID expenditures. “It would take us pretty much the entire night to read through the list of wasted taxpayer dollars.”
USAID’s potential indirect funding of Hamas
Another contentious issue is whether USAID funds have indirectly supported Hamas. In a 2023 Senate hearing, Hagerty questioned then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken about the possibility of U.S. taxpayer money benefiting Hamas. Blinken maintained that stringent safeguards were in place but did not provide an outright denial.
A 2021 State Department internal assessment obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request noted a “high risk” that Hamas could derive indirect, unintentional benefits from U.S. aid to Gaza.
“Due to its overall strength and level of control over Gaza, we assess there is a high risk Hamas could potentially derive indirect, unintentional benefit from U.S. assistance to Gaza,” the assessment said. “There is less but still some risk U.S. assistance would benefit other designated groups.”
Left-leaning media outlets argued that dismantling USAID could increase the risk of funds reaching extremist groups, while right-leaning news outlets said U.S. tax dollars already helped terror organizations.
Fox News: “‘Designated terrorists’: Extremist groups raked in millions from USAID, multiyear study reveals.”
CNN: “Watchdog warns Trump’s dismantling of vetting at USAID means US money could reach terror groups.”
A conservative think tank report highlighted by Fox News found that USAID awarded over $900,000 to the Bayader Association for Environment and Development, a Gaza-based group allegedly tied to Hamas.
“Founded in 2007, shortly after Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip, Bayader operates in close cooperation with the Hamas regime,” the report said. “Its 2021 annual report notes ‘coordination’ and ‘meetings’ with Hamas’s Ministry of Interior.”
“USAID requires that programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza, and Yemen receive “partner vetting,” in order to ensure that taxpayer funds do not end up supporting groups like Hamas,” CNN reported. “These vetting efforts have ground to a halt because of the reduction in staff at USAID.”
CNN’s report noted the USAID Office of Inspector General “has previously identified gaps in the scope of partner vetting.”
Coverage of USAID has largely mirrored the political divide. CNN interviewed a former USAID administrator who defended the agency’s work, calling its programs essential for global public health and humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, Fox News featured a USAID whistleblower who criticized the agency as rife with waste and bureaucratic inefficiency.
Both outlets presented expert testimonies supporting their respective political narratives, underscoring the importance of scrutinizing media framing when consuming news.
USAID’s future under the Trump Administration
USAID’s Washington headquarters recently had its signage removed as the Trump administration moves to dramatically scale down the agency. The moves started with evicting USAID and its employees from headquarters. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now overseeing a review of USAID activities, with non-essential foreign aid programs frozen during the assessment.
A Rubio memo revealed plans to reduce staff from 14,000 to fewer than 300. However, court interventions temporarily paused these staffing directives amid legal battles with unions.
Essential programs, including food and medicine distribution, continue despite reports of disruptions in Boston and Houston due to confusion over which initiatives remain operational.
President Donald Trump, in a Fox News interview before the Super Bowl, indicated that while some beneficial USAID programs would remain, the agency’s responsibilities might be transferred to another department. He reiterated his stance on eliminating wasteful spending within USAID.
“We’re talking about hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, it’s just a fraud,” Trump said. “It’s a big scam. Now, there’s some good money, and we can do that. I think I’d rather give it to Marco Rubio at the State Department, let him take care of the few good ones.”
The debate over USAID reflects broader partisan divisions. Left-leaning outlets largely defend the agency’s work, while right-leaning coverage supports deep cuts. Both sides frame facts differently, shaping public perception according to political ideology.
Understanding media bias is crucial in navigating these narratives. As this debate unfolds, discerning the full picture sometimes requires analyzing multiple sources and perspectives.
For more episodes of Bias Breakdown, click here.