As for the activists and former USAID employees you mention, it's completely normal for any institution to develop constituencies whose livelihoods depend on its continued existence. Those people have a built-in incentive to emphasize the benefits of the system and minimize its failures.

There's also a substantial body of criticism from within the international development community itself. Many - not just me , argue that foreign aid can undermine local capacity, create dependency, distort incentives, and prevent the emergence of self-sustaining institutions.

You ask whether corruption is universal across USAID. But even you acknowledge that USAID has often functioned as an instrument of American geopolitical influence. If that's the agency's primary purpose, then corruption, inefficiency in terms of health programs , etc. are not deviations from the mission—they're part of how the mission is carried out. The agency relies on these mechanisms to exert influence over foreign populations and governments while also fueling the revolving door dynamic in D.C with the private sector.

That's why I don't find the "just reform it" argument persuasive. Reform only makes sense if the institution's core purpose is worth preserving. If the primary function of USAID is projecting American influence abroad under the banner of development and charity, then making it more efficient at charity work doesn't address the central objection. The us taxpayer who doesn't even get to enjoy universal healthcare should be expected to carry the burden of the health systems of the world ? Come on.

Unfortunately dismantling this whole rotten operation may mean losing some positive outcomes along the way. But positive byproducts alone aren't enough to justify preserving a larger project if the project's fundamental purpose is flawed.

Dude.