Last week, the Trump administration ended almost all of the US foreign aid contracts, shutting down those found to be in national interest after telling federal courts that the aid program had finished reviewing.
However, over the past few days, many of these same programs have received a survey asking them for the first time to detail what their projects are doing (or did) and how their work matches the national interest.
The survey obtained by The New York Times is titled “Foreign Support Review.” Some agencies received it with instructions indicating that the data collected would “support the next stage of the administration's foreign support review.” The deadline for returning the investigation is from March 7th to March 17th.
Many of the projects under scrutiny have already fired staff and closed doors as they have not received federal funds since the review process was superficially launched. President Trump issued a freeze aid for the executive order on January 20th, waiting for review. There are no staff left within some organizations to complete the investigation.
The distribution of the survey is the latest twist on an eight-week roller coaster ride for aid organizations. The chaos began with a freeze on all funds, including suspension orders for employees and contractors of the U.S. International Development Agency, and a refund of hundreds of millions of dollars already spent. The process followed that allowed organizations that provided life-saving medical care and food aid to seek exemptions that allowed them to continue their work.
After that, more than 5,000 projects and programs were fired last Wednesday. Since then, some projects have been said to be fully restored, while others have only recovered to the original exemption conditions that have disappeared next month. Almost no one has seen unzen outstanding funds.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must keep an eye on lower court orders to release frozen foreign aid. But the ruling comes after thousands of projects went bankrupt due to an already eight-week freeze.
New surveys had been sent to many organisations prior to the Supreme Court decision. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.
“The whole process is baffling. We were initially asked to resume our lifesaving program, but we weren't given the money to do so. Now, in theory, we are being asked to review programs that have been previously reviewed and already ended.”
The new study asks more than 25 questions from grant recipients, including thousands of emergency food aid, malaria management and tuberculosis treatment projects, about how their projects will contribute to the national interests of the United States. It also provides a checklist that includes some of the Trump administration's biggest political goals, including halting illegal immigration and advocacy for “gender ideology.”
This allows answers of up to 150 characters (approximately 35 words) and allows for 1-5 points based on how well the project is working for each goal.
Among the survey questions, the verbatim quoted below:
Can I make sure this is not a DEI project and there are no DEI elements for that project?
Can you confirm that this is not a climate or “environmental justice” project, or would you include such elements?
Will this project have a direct impact on efforts to combat the effects of malignant things, including China?
What impact will this project have on restricting the flow of fentanyl, synthetic drugs and precursor chemicals to the US?
Does this project directly affect efforts to strengthen the US supply chain and to make rare earth minerals safer?
Does this project directly contribute to restrictions on illegal immigration or strengthening US border security?
In a statement of oath on February 26, Peter Marrocco, a State Department official who oversees the cuts to USAID in response to lawsuits filed by the aid organization, said “the process of considering each of the outstanding USAID obligations individually has ended,” while Secretary of State Marco Rubio said “has made a final decision with their respective awards.” He showed that around 297 State Department contracts (not grants) are still being reviewed.
In a March 5 submission, the government said it had “almost completed a separate review of existing contracts and grants,” and that “almost all” of the State Department and USAID's foreign aid funds have been “reviewed individually.”
In a report on compliance with the court order filed on March 6, the government said “most” of the contracts were “reviewed individually.”
David A. Super, a law professor at Georgetown University, repeatedly said they conducted individual reviews when there was little evidence they were doing so, and state department staff were “exposed to contempt the court and its lawyers to serious consequences.”
By submitting the survey, it was not a requirement that the review involves gathering information from grant recipients, but the government implies that it requires information, he added.
“They say we need to know these things to know if your activities support US foreign policy, but when we did the review, we didn't know these things,” he said.
The investigation was sent to projects funded through 32 different USAID sectors, including the Bureau of Global Health, Food Security, Chief Economists, and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance.
Karoun Demirjian contributed the report.
