The Case for Funding USAID
To the Editor:
Your mention of USAID’s fauxpaux with a plant chemical (in Andy Behlen’s column last week) was certainly worth mentioning. However, your faithful followers should also know about other USAID activities.
Credit to Minnesota Star newspaper and USAID archives” for the information.
There are several strong reasons for the U.S. to continue funding USAID (United States Agency for International Development): 1. National Security & Stability – USAID helps address the root causes of conflict, instability, and extremism by promoting economic development, good governance, and humanitarian aid. This reduces the need for costly military interventions.
2. Economic Benefits for the U.S. – By fostering economic growth in developing countries, USAID creates new markets for American goods and services. U.S. companies benefit when developing nations become stronger trading partners.
3. Humanitarian Leadership – As a global leader, the U.S. has a moral responsibility to provide aid during disasters, famines, and conflicts. USAID plays a key role in responding to humanitarian crises, improving America’s reputation abroad.
4. Health & Disease Prevention – USAID funds global health initiatives, including disease eradication efforts, vaccine distribution, and maternal health programs. Controlling diseases abroad reduces the risk of pandemics reaching the U.S.
5. Strengthening Alliances – Aid strengthens diplomatic relationships with allies and developing nations, increasing U.S. influence in international affairs. Countries that receive U.S. assistance are more likely to align withAmerican interests.
6. Countering Competitors Like China & Russia – Other global powers, especially China, are investing heavily in foreign aid and infrastructure projects to gain influence. USAID helps the U.S. maintain its leadership role in global development.
7. Climate Change & Environmental Protection – USAID supports programs that help countries mitigate and adapt to climate change, reducing long-term environmental risks that could also impact the U.S.
8. Cost-Effective Investment – Foreign aid is a very small portion of the federal budget (less than 1%), but it yields long-term benefits by preventing crises that could require much larger military or emergency spending in the future. If the U.S. were to stop funding USAID, American farmers could face significant financial losses due to decreased demand for their crops in global markets. Here’s why: Estimated Impact on U.S.
Farmers
1. Loss of Export Markets • USAID purchases large amounts of U.S. agricultural products for food aid programs.
• The U.S. exports billions of dollars’ worth of wheat, corn, soybeans, and other staple crops to developing countries, many of which are supported by USAID initiatives.
• If USAID funding is cut, these countries may turn to other suppliers (such as China, Brazil, or Russia), reducing U.S. exports.
2. Food for Peace Program Disruptions
• This program, run by USAID, buys U.S. crops and ships them to countries in need.
• In 2022, about $2 billion worth of U.S. agricultural products were used for global food aid. Cutting USAID could eliminate much of this demand.
3. Loss of Agricultural Development Programs
• USAID supports agricultural development in partner countries, helping them adopt U.S. farming technologies and seeds.
• If the U.S. pulls out, competing nations (such as China) could step in and promote their own agricultural products instead.
4. Higher Surpluses, Lower Prices for U.S. Farmers
• Reduced exports mean farmers would have more surplus crops, potentially leading to lower market prices for wheat, soybeans, and corn.
• This would hurt farm incomes, especially in states where agriculture is a key economic driver (Midwest, Great Plains, etc.)
Estimated Dollar Losses While exact numbers depend on trade policies and global demand, studies show that U.S. agricultural exports tied to USAID-supported markets exceed $5-7 billion annually. If USAID programs were cut, much of this demand could disappear or shift to competitors.
In Texas? The cessation of USAID funding could have significant economic repercussions for Texas, particularly in the agricultural sector. While precise figures are challenging to ascertain, several key factors illustrate the potential impact: 1. Reduction in Commodity Purchases:
• In 2024, USAID’s Food for Peace program purchased approximately $2 billion worth of U.S.-grown agricultural commodities, including wheat, corn, soybeans, and sorghum. A portion of these commodities is sourced from Texas farmers. The termination of USAID could lead to a substantial decrease in these purchases, directly affecting Texas producers. (Star Tribune) 2. Disruption of Export Markets:
• USAID facilitates the export of U.S. agricultural products to developing countries, creating and sustaining markets for Texas farmers. The agency’s closure may result in the loss of these markets, forcing Texas producers to find alternative buyers in an already competitive global market.
3. Impact on Agricultural Research and Development:
• USAID has historically funded agricultural research that benefits U.S. farmers. For instance, USAID-funded research on greenbug-resistant sorghum varieties saved American farmers $389 million in 1989 alone. Texas, being a significant sorghum-producing state, has likely benefited from such initiatives. The discontinuation of USAID could hinder future research and development opportunities. (USAIDArchive) 4. Broader Economic Implications:
• The reduction in agricultural sales and exports could have a ripple effect on the Texas economy, affecting related industries such as transportation, processing, and equipment manufacturing. This could lead to job losses and decreased economic activity in rural communities across the state.
In summary, while the exact financial loss to Texas due to the cessation of USAID is difficult to quantify, the potential negative impacts on agricultural sales, export markets, research advancements, and the broader economy are considerable.
Virginia Leech La Grange