The Department of Government Efficiency has disrupted government-as-usual in exposing the bloat American taxpayers  know exists — including within the taxpayer-funded United States Agency for International Development.  While some lament the loss of funding for pet projects, it’s a moment to consider the importance of the nation’s religious charities as an alternative to government bloat. 

Feature some of the curious funding, uncovered by DOGE, that President Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, recently reported at Usaid:  $1.5 million in grants given to promote DEI in Serbia, $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland, and, even $47,000 to produce a transgender opera in Colombia.  Perhaps theatergoers took with them the Peruvian transgender comic book, produced with $32,000 American taxpayer monies. 

Critics claim DOGE’s efforts — if legal or constitutional — have disastrous consequences. The United Nations argues that “US funding pause leaves millions ‘in jeopardy.’” Representative Ilhan Omar claims cutting Usaid’s funding is “endangering Americans around the world” — nevermind Secretary Rubio’s assurance that “a lot of the functions of USAID are going to continue” but that such funding “has to be aligned with American foreign policy.” 

In other words, Irish DEI musicals appear to be misaligned with today’s American foreign policy.

What opponents of DOGE’s actions fail to mention is that Americans are a charitable people outside of government.  In 2023, total charitable giving topped $557 billion in the United States.  In contrast, Usaid’s budget — which “can be imprecise” — is estimated to be roughly 1 percent of the federal budget, or $40 billion dollars. 

In other words, private American charity dwarfs taxpayer-funded charity — including privately funded efforts combatting HIV and AIDS worldwide, supplying clean drinking water in sub-Saharan Africa, and fighting a burgeoning human trafficking trade.   

Many may insist that the examples held up by Ms. Leavitt are mere punch lines, useful props justifying more sinister efforts by President Trump and Elon Musk to pause, if not eliminate, the billions in far more reasonable Usaid funding — causing real, tangible pain to those who are now dependent upon the federal aid dollars.  Messrs. Trump and Musk are the villains, is the predictable narrative.

Funding transgender operas and DEI musicals may be but a small drop in the bucket of Usaid funding, but should these be the forced charitable exports of the American people?  In a country pouring roughly half-a-trillion dollars into charitable giving annually, are there not private American charities that could raise a scant $32,000 for a Peruvian transgender comic book? 

If not, perhaps that explains why the American taxpayer — unwilling to do so voluntarily — should not be forced by threats of the IRS to do so through its mandated taxes.  It is progressive, identity politics ideology — not Mr. Musk — that has now jeopardized otherwise beneficial Usaid funding.

Let us not forget that America’s charities — many of which bear a religious mission — remain unaffected.  Groups like the International Justice Mission, Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, Compassion International, Mercy Ships, Convoy of Hope, ChildFund, Adventist Development & Relief Agency and many others remain committed to raising  privately billions of charitable dollars to be spent beyond the borders of the United States — all without a government mandate or compelled taxpayer contributions.

Yet some question whether religious organizations deserve a tax exemption to do such charitable work.  The Supreme Court will shortly hear a just such a case.  Regardless of what they conclude, the Court has decided at least three cases since just 2017 labeling efforts to exclude religious institutions from sharing in public benefits “odious to our Constitution.”

Politicians and judges will soon sort out the future of Usaid, but Americans ought to consider the moment.  As progressives decry government enforced charity, they would do well to consider that, if government aid is the only source by which identity politics can be exported, then perhaps there is no market — public or private — open to otherwise voter-rejected ideologies. 

If this is indeed a time to improve the government’s efficiency, then what is more effective than allowing the private market to drive America’s worldwide charitable investment? Rather than commandeer religious charities, Usaid and others could consider what religious organizations are already doing and ask how the country can help them be more successful.