Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the Trump administration’s reorganization of what he calls the U.S. “foreign aid industrial complex” during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday.
Rubio said previously at USAID, “Only 12 cents of every dollar was reaching the recipient.”
“We still will provide more foreign aid, more humanitarian support, than the next 10 countries combined… and far more than China,” he said, disputing the argument that the U.S. is handing over soft power to China by cutting foreign aid. “China doesn’t do humanitarian aid. China does predatory lending.”
“Many of the reforms we’ve made were driven by people inside the building—many of whom have worked there for 20 or 30 years,” he said. “The State Department had to change. I’m telling you—it was no longer at the center of American foreign policy. It had often been replaced by the National Security Council or by some other agency of government.”
SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: Even with the reforms we put in place, and what we’re suggesting as changes to our foreign aid, we still will provide more foreign aid, more humanitarian support, than the next 10 countries combined, than the entire OECD. And far more than China.
China doesn’t do humanitarian aid. China does predatory lending. That’s what the Belt and Road Initiative is. That’s what all of their “aid” is. They have zero record of doing humanitarian aid in the world. And frankly, they don’t know how to do it. They have no interest in doing it.
What they’re very good at is going into some country, making you a loan, and then holding that debt over your head. And that’s what they continue doing. By the way, you have to hire a Chinese company to do it.
So I don’t agree with this assessment, there’s any evidence whatsoever that China has either the capacity or the will to replace the U.S. in humanitarian assistance, in food deliveries, or in developmental assistance, for that matter.
We provide development assistance. They provide debt traps. And that’s a point we’ve made over and over again around the world—and we’ve found receptive audiences to it.
Now look, anytime you undertake reforms of this magnitude—and they needed to be made—you’re going to have hiccups. And you’re also going to have controversy. But these reforms had to happen.
At USAID, 12 cents of every dollar was reaching the recipient. That means that in order for us to get aid to somebody, we had to spend all this other money supporting this foreign aid industrial complex.
We’re going to find more efficient ways to deliver aid to people directly. It’s going to be directed by our regional bureaus. It’s going to sponsor programs that make a difference. And it’s going to be part of a holistic approach to our foreign policy.
And I look forward to engaging with this committee and the appropriators as well in ensuring that we get to the right place on that.
My last point I would make is—this is something I am very proud of.
I believe—and I’m not besmirching anyone else—but I believe that the approach we’ve taken at the State Department, and frankly at USAID, to move forward reforms that involved input from all of our partners… that required input from people within the building…
Many of the reforms we’ve made were driven by people inside the building—many of whom have worked there for 20 or 30 years.
And now we are engaged with Congress—both in the House and Senate—in a comment period where we’re taking many of your comments and making changes to our organizational proposals. We look forward to bringing them back to you with an official congressional notification. And even after that, there will be an opportunity to move forward.
But the State Department had to change.
I’m telling you—it was no longer at the center of American foreign policy. It had often been replaced by the National Security Council or by some other agency of government.
When, in fact, we have these highly talented people—many of whom have served in multiple posts around the world and have a holistic view of how foreign policy needs to be conducted—who were being edged out.
Because, you know what? When I got a decision memo early on at the State Department, they would hand me these memos—there were 40 boxes on this piece of paper. That means 40 people had to check off “yes” before it even got to me.
That’s ridiculous. That takes too long.
That’s why people said, “Don’t use the State Department. They take too long, and it’s too cumbersome.” And if any one of those little boxes didn’t get checked, the memo didn’t move up the chain.
That can’t continue. We can’t move at that pace in this world. Events happen quickly. And we have to be able to move at the pace of relevance.
So I hope to work with you in a productive way to make that possible.
You’re not going to like all the changes. But I want you to know what the intent of the changes is.
It is not to dismantle American foreign policy. It is not to withdraw us from the world. I just hit 18 countries in 18 weeks. That doesn’t sound like much of a withdrawal.
And I see some of these foreign ministers—including individuals from Ukraine—more than I’ve seen my own children. And I talk to them at least three times a week.
We are engaged in the world. But we’re going to be engaged in a way that makes sense, and that’s smart. And that isn’t about saving money. It is about ensuring that we are delivering to our people what they deserve—a foreign policy that makes America stronger, safer, and more prosperous.
