USAID shutdown would halt research grants to state universities

Sharing is caring!

State colleges and universities might lose hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly research funding if the Trump administration is successful in closing the federal United States Agency for International Development, also known as USAID worldwide.

For many years, USAID has relied on specialists from state colleges and universities to help it enhance public health, education, and agriculture abroad while also fostering goodwill toward the US.

For instance, USAID’s initiatives to create more pest-resistant and climate-resilient crop types in developing nations involve dozens of U.S. institutions and universities. In recent years, USAID has also awarded contracts to state institutions to help train K–12 teachers in Egypt and Georgia, as well as to increase African and Asian nations’ ability to fight malaria and tuberculosis.

The finest of the best may be drawn from across U.S. society, according to Neil Levine, who oversaw USAID’s work on democracy and human rights from 2014 to 2017. The impact of this [shutdown] is so widespread since Tier 1 research universities are also aid partners.

However, some opponents claim that rather than reaching the people in other nations who are meant to benefit from it, an excessive amount of USAID’s overseas aid is sucked up by universities and other contractors.

Tom Nicholson, executive director of Advance Access & Delivery, a global health nonprofit organization based in Durham, North Carolina, said, “I have worked in the field of tuberculosis for almost 20 years, and I have observed that the grants that actually work in the recipient country to provide care or screening for tuberculosis are the hardest to get through.”

Although his firm has not filed for any USAID money, Nicholson, who recently published an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal criticizing USAID, claimed that during his work, he has met with agency subcontractors multiple times to urge them to give more direct TB care.

“I just want to push for more transparent bilateral assistance so we can distinguish between helping academic friends and actually providing services,” Nicholson stated.

By the conclusion of fiscal 2025, USAID aims to have at least 25% of its funding go directly to local partners abroad, as it stated in 2021. The independent Congressional Research Service reported in January that the percentage was 9.6% in 2023, down from 10.2% in 2022.

In order to give the government time to decide which programs will continue, President Donald Trump issued an order last month to freeze all foreign aid for 90 days. The government has essentially demolished USAID during the last two weeks, putting its staff on leave, directing a halt to its operations, and dismantling its offices in Washington, D.C.

On his social media network, Truth Social, Trump demanded on Friday that USAID be permanently shut down, accusing the organization of fraud and corruption without offering any proof. The administration’s proposal to place 2,200 agency employees on administrative leave and remove almost all of its foreign staff within 30 days was halted by a federal judge later that day.

In reaction to a lawsuit brought by unions that represent USAID employees, such action was taken. A similar complaint was filed on Tuesday by a coalition of small enterprises, contractors, and nongovernmental organizations that receive funding from USAID.

Although just over 1% of the federal budget is allocated to foreign aid, the United States is the greatest contributor of humanitarian aid in the world. This is less than what many other countries spend. In fiscal 2023, USAID disbursed over $43.8 billion in aid, or roughly 60% of all U.S. foreign aid expenditures.

Supporters claim that in addition to its humanitarian benefits, foreign aid provides a reasonably priced means for the United States to use so-called soft power, which aids in the fight against adversaries like China and Russia.

State institutions, which also depend on funds allotted by state legislatures, tuition, and endowments, rely heavily on federal research grants like those offered by USAID.

According to Mark Owczarski, a Virginia Tech spokesperson, grants from external organizations such as USAID enable us to look for and obtain more financing, which in turn enables us to further develop our teaching, research, and engagement that are essential to our land grant mission.

As climate change causes more frequent and severe monsoons, Virginia Tech was awarded a $5 million grant from USAID last summer to work with Indian higher education institutions to strengthen the infrastructure of that nation. According to Owczarski, Virginia Tech is trying to learn more about how these orders may affect the university in the long run.

The same uncertainty is plaguing numerous other public universities. The Universities of California, Berkeley and San Diego announced in December that they would contribute to a $75 million USAID initiative to increase the cost-effectiveness of anti-poverty initiatives around the world.

We are positioned to attract the best of the best from across American society. Tier 1 research universities are therefore aid partners as well.

Neil Levine, a former USAID director of democracy and human rights

Michigan State University revealed in November that it has been awarded a $17 million, five-year USAID contract to enhance STEM education in Malawi. Additionally, Mississippi State University announced last summer that USAID would extend a five-year contract and offer an extra $15 million for the university’s work to improve the use of aquatic food resources by farmers and fishermen in Asia and Africa.

Kansas State University revealed last November that USAID had selected it to manage a $50 million award spread over five years to assist improve the resilience of crops in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, and Honduras to climate change and extreme weather events.

In response to Stateline’s inquiries regarding the university’s plans in light of the uncertainty surrounding the agency, Kansas State spokesperson Pat Melgares wrote in an email, “We are awaiting updates and guidance from our federal partners and will take action as needed.”

Timothy Dalton, a researcher at Kansas State, co-authored a 2022 study that found that between 1978 and 2018, USAID’s $1.24 billion investment in international agricultural research generated approximately $8.4 billion in economic benefits. It discovered that those earning less than $5.50 per day received about four-fifths of the advantages.

However, the agency has been criticized in other investigations, such as a 2019 audit by the USAID inspector general, for inadequate oversight of its grant awards. According to the inspector general, 43% of programs that concluded in 2014, 2015, and 2016 only partially met their objectives, but USAID nonetheless gave grantees their whole award. Investigators came to the conclusion that persistent, systemic flaws in award management make it more difficult for USAID to hold implementers responsible for their work.

In addition to charging for overhead, USAID operates through grants and contracts that provide hard products like food, medicine, and machinery as well as knowledge and training. Levine claimed that as a result, a significant amount of money is spent in the United States.

USAID is criticized by the right for using American tax dollars abroad. He went on to say that USAID and its partners are criticized by the left for spending excessively in the United States. The majority of USAID employees aspire to do good development.

As a 501c(3) public charity, Stateline is a component of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network backed by grants and a coalition of donors. Editorial independence is upheld by Stateline. For inquiries, send an email to [email protected] to reach Editor Scott S. Greenberger.