China builds roads, USAID funds gender theory — who’s winning?

As the Department of Government Efficiency continues exposing waste and fraud in Washington, the revelations about the United States Agency for International Development have drawn the most attention. While USAID’s waste is staggering, many conservatives aren’t surprised. They long suspected that a massive portion of federal revenue was being spent unnecessarily on initiatives that serve no real purpose.

The real scandal isn’t just USAID’s graft — it’s the reaction to it, particularly from Democrats. While moderates and conservatives were outraged at the depth of corruption, establishment leftists didn’t dismiss the findings as a “nothingburger.” They didn’t even attempt to defend USAID by highlighting its legitimate contributions to national interests. Instead, they claimed that any attempt to reform or defund USAID was an “attack on democracy.”

With the right policies, a revitalized infrastructure strategy, and a radical rethinking of foreign aid, America can regain the upper hand.

In other words, the story isn’t just the waste itself — it’s that many on the left, and even some on the right, view waste and misappropriation as essential functions of American governance.

At first glance, this seems absurd. But a look at history helps explain how USAID came to exist and why its defenders refuse to let it go. U.S. foreign aid efforts expanded dramatically after World War II, initially falling under various government agencies. While some programs had altruistic goals, most were strategic — forms of “soft power” designed to advance American interests.

After the war, only two nations remained in the race for global dominance: the United States and the Soviet Union. The Cold War became a battle between free-market capitalism and Soviet communism, and foreign aid was one of many tools the U.S. used to secure influence. USAID, like many institutions born in that era, was designed to serve geopolitical objectives under the guise of humanitarian assistance. Today, however, it has become an unchecked slush fund — one that many in Washington see as untouchable.

A slush fund for ideological experiments

Most Americans agree that the Cold War was a battle the United States needed to win. Foreign aid programs played a key role in that fight, but they were not purely humanitarian. In many cases, they were designed to create economic dependency among developing nations, securing their loyalty and compliance with American geopolitical objectives. This approach wasn’t unique to the U.S. — power dynamics like these have always been central to global politics.

It’s no coincidence that USAID was created during a period of rapid expansion in the U.S. intelligence community. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 consolidated various foreign aid initiatives into a single agency, making them a formal part of American foreign policy. USAID’s early operations worked in tandem with the CIA, leveraging aid not just to stabilize allies but also to undermine adversaries. The Cold War-era mission of USAID was clear: solidify America’s role as a global superpower.

After the Cold War ended and the U.S. emerged as the undisputed leader of the liberal world order, USAID’s mission shifted from gaining global hegemony to maintaining it. This shift makes the agency’s recent spending priorities even more scandalous. When USAID directs $2 million toward sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala, is it trying to improve Guatemalan society — or destabilize it? What about the $1.5 million it sent to Serbia for DEI initiatives? Or the millions allegedly allocated to Gaza for condoms?

Regardless of USAID’s intent, these expenditures expose why Americans should be outraged — and why the agency needs to be dismantled. If USAID genuinely believes that increasing the number of sex changes in Guatemala is a marker of societal progress, it reveals just how ideologically compromised U.S. foreign policy has become.

The left often speaks about respecting “cultural diversity,” yet USAID seems determined to impose progressive American social norms on other nations. If gender ideology remains one of the most divisive issues in the United States, why should our government assume it benefits foreign nations? If USAID believes these policies are necessary abroad, its leaders undoubtedly believe they’re necessary at home — raising the disturbing possibility that the federal government is actively undermining one side of a live and fractious political debate.

So much for defending democracy.

Cultural revolution abroad and at home

USAID may claim that funding sex changes in Guatemala is about helping vulnerable people, but it is just as likely to create deep divisions in a society that remains largely traditional. Why would the U.S. government actively fund policies that disrupt social cohesion in another country?

And if this is the goal abroad, we must also consider whether similar efforts at home serve the same purpose. The federal push to expand access to “gender reassignment surgery” in the United States raises a troubling question: Is this about individual rights, or is it part of a broader attempt to destabilize traditionalist regions within America itself? By amplifying cultural divisions, the federal government exerts control over states and communities that resist its progressive agenda.

The real issue isn’t just USAID’s sex change initiative in Guatemala. Whether this program is meant to “help” or “harm” the country, it reveals the federal government’s priorities — and they are deeply at odds with the American political tradition.

If USAID genuinely believes increasing the number of sex changes improves a society, then its approach to “nation-building” has been corrupted by far-left ideology. If, on the other hand, these initiatives are meant to disrupt and weaken Guatemala’s social fabric, then it becomes clear that the same tactics are being deployed domestically to erode traditional values and institutions.

These contradictions are not unique to Guatemala. USAID’s budget is filled with similarly questionable expenditures, all of which reflect a larger scandal: A government agency originally designed to advance U.S. interests abroad is now subverting culture and politics both overseas and at home.

USAID was created to establish and maintain an American-led global order, but that order is now falling apart. Instead of adapting to these geopolitical shifts, USAID seems more focused on promoting ideological agendas than securing strategic alliances. Worse still, many of the nations receiving American tax dollars no longer feel any obligation to align with U.S. interests.

Rather than reinforcing America’s influence, USAID has fostered a dangerous sense of entitlement among foreign governments. These nations have come to expect U.S. aid as a permanent fixture, while contributing little in return. The left, unwilling to acknowledge the geopolitical reality, continues to push the fiction that foreign aid is purely humanitarian. Any attempt to scrutinize USAID’s operations is met with hysteria, as though reforming an outdated and dysfunctional agency is an attack on moral decency itself.

That is the real scandal.

Why China is winning the soft power battle

The global landscape of 2025 differs dramatically from the world of 1980, and America needs a new strategic plan to compete in the 21st century. China has clearly replaced Russia as our primary geopolitical rival, and its Belt and Road Initiative mirrors the foreign aid strategies the United States once used. But China’s motives are at least as self-serving as ours ever were — if not more.

The rapid rise of China as a global power is proof that the post-World War II order America built is crumbling. China’s foreign aid programs present both a challenge and an opportunity for the United States.

The bad news? China isn’t funding sex changes in Guatemala. China is building roads, bridges, and railways. While these projects undoubtedly serve China’s economic and strategic interests, they also provide tangible benefits to the nations receiving assistance. Many of these countries will see infrastructure development as a net gain — while America offers little more than ideological activism. If the best we can export is gender studies and cultural upheaval, China will win the loyalty of nations that could have been in our corner as a new Cold War takes shape.

The good news? China's focus on infrastructure shows that America can still compete and win using soft power. We built a transcontinental railroad over 150 years ago. For 75 years, we have maintained the world’s most comprehensive highway system. We know how to build roads and rails — at least, we used to. If we have forgotten, now is the time to remember.

With the right policies, a revitalized infrastructure strategy, and a radical rethinking of foreign aid — who we fund, what we fund, and what strings we attach — America can regain the upper hand. We need a plan that prioritizes economic development, strengthens strategic alliances, and reinforces America’s leadership in an increasingly unstable world.

Ending USAID would be a powerful acknowledgment that the geopolitical realities of 2025 are vastly different from those of the postwar era. Recognizing this shift is a necessary first step toward crafting a foreign policy that secures American interests in a world undergoing massive technological, economic, and cultural upheaval.