Lawfare Daily: The End of USAID, with Nicholas Kristof

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast Summary: "Lawfare Daily: The End of USAID, with Nicholas Kristof"

Release Date: July 17, 2025

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "Lawfare Daily: The End of USAID," hosted by Anna Hickey of The Lawfare Institute, renowned New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof delves into the ramifications of President Trump's decision to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This decision has profound implications not only for global humanitarian efforts but also for U.S. national security and international standing.

---

Background on USAID and Its Impact

Nicholas Kristof begins by outlining his longstanding engagement with global development issues, stemming from his experiences in Africa and Asia during his time at Oxford University. He emphasizes USAID's pivotal role in saving approximately three million lives annually through initiatives like PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and malaria prevention programs. Kristof highlights significant strides made in reducing extreme poverty (from 41% to under 10%) and increasing global literacy rates, attributing much of this progress to USAID's efforts.

“USAID was saving more lives than any agency in the federal government.” [03:17]

---

The Trump Administration's Dismantling of USAID

Anna Hickey provides a detailed account of the Trump administration's actions against USAID, including the cancellation of 84% of its contracts and the termination of 93% of its staff. By July 1, the agency's remaining operations were absorbed into various State Department bureaus. Kristof critiques these moves, labeling them as not only wasteful but also morally reprehensible, as they lead to real human suffering.

“This is an organization that has lost about a hundred people on the front lines around the world in conflicts while trying to help others.” [07:02]

---

On-the-Ground Impacts in Africa

Kristof shares harrowing accounts from his visits to South Sudan, Kenya, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. In South Sudan, the abrupt cessation of antiretroviral (ARV) treatments led to the death of a five-year-old boy, Evan Anzo, an AIDS orphan. Despite the program's proven life-saving efficacy, funding cuts resulted in essential medicines piling up unused in U.S. warehouses.

“I saw kids dying. I would love to take Elon Musk and Marco Rubio along on a trip to show them the consequences of their actions.” [09:38]

In Liberia, the withdrawal of fuel for ambulances culminated in a maternal death when a woman named Yama Freeman couldn't reach the hospital in time due to fuel shortages.

“She was bleeding and she didn't make it. And so, you know, you want to talk about waste, that was, that's a waste of a $50,000 vehicle that the US had provided.” [12:24]

---

National Security Implications

The discussion pivots to the broader national security ramifications of dismantling USAID. Kristof argues that USAID's programs not only embody American humanitarian values but also serve strategic interests by fostering goodwill and countering China's growing influence in regions like Africa. The reduction in USAID's capabilities weakens U.S. soft power and hampers health surveillance systems vital for preventing global pandemics and other health crises from affecting the U.S.

“The collapse of USAID is a gift to China.” [02:24]

“Health security is an incredibly narrow minded and myopic view of national security if you disregard the health element of it.” [26:41]

---

China's Expanding Influence

Kristof warns that China's Belt and Road Initiative and other strategic investments are filling the void left by USAID's withdrawal, thereby enhancing China's geopolitical leverage. He contends that America's reduced presence allows China to win hearts and minds through infrastructure projects and humanitarian aid, which directly compete with U.S. efforts to maintain global alliances and secure critical resources like rare earth minerals.

“China has been quite deliberately moving into some of these places as we pull out.” [32:00]

---

Reactions from Affected Communities

Kristof describes the resilience and dedication of USAID staff and local health workers who, despite lack of funding, continue to provide essential services. He recounts interactions with health workers in Sierra Leone's Last Mile Health group, who persist in their missions despite not receiving salaries or necessary supplies, underscoring their commitment to saving lives.

“There were a lot of folks, both American nationals and foreign nationals, who were really proud of their mission with USAID.” [35:55]

---

Future Prospects and Rebuilding Efforts

Looking ahead, Kristof expresses cautious optimism about the potential to rebuild USAID or reestablish humanitarian assistance through the State Department under future administrations. However, he underscores the significant challenges posed by the loss of institutional knowledge and the immediate human costs that continue in the absence of effective aid programs.

“There is some capacity down the road to rebuild? A lot of it, yeah. And I hope that will happen.” [38:18]

---

Conclusion

Nicholas Kristof concludes by reiterating the essential role of USAID in both humanitarian efforts and national security. He laments the inefficiency and lack of empathy demonstrated by the abrupt cessation of aid programs, emphasizing that even modest investments can save lives and bolster America's global standing against rivals like China.

“It's an embarrassment as an American that we let this happen.” [35:24]

Anna Hickey wraps up the discussion by acknowledging the critical insights provided, highlighting the episode's significance in understanding the intersection of foreign aid and national security.

---

Key Takeaways

• USAID's Role: Fundamental in saving millions of lives annually and advancing global development.
• Dismantling Consequences: Significant loss of aid, leading to preventable deaths and weakening U.S. soft power.
• National Security: Health surveillance and humanitarian assistance are integral to preventing global crises from impacting the U.S.
• China's Advantage: Opportunity for China to expand influence through strategic investments and aid programs.
• Rebuilding Hope: Potential for future restoration of aid programs, but hampered by current inefficiencies and human costs.

---

Notable Quotes

• “We can't save every life out there and inevitably it is going to be higher risk to be born and grow up in South Sudan or somewhere like that, but we can save lives and Improve, well, being very inexpensively.” [39:41]
• “These are really cheap, considering the potential costs, as we saw with COVID.” [27:03]
• “One of the things that struck me in particular was I was in Sierra Leone and I visited a warehouse where there were millions of doses of medicine that had been donated by American and European companies to help these kids... It's just a complete failure of empathy, a complete failure of practicality.” [39:41]

---

This episode sheds light on the critical intersection between humanitarian assistance and national security, emphasizing the far-reaching impacts of policy decisions on both global well-being and America's strategic interests.

Transcript

[Podcast Host]

The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of [e-mail] lawfare that's patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security, Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull, and the Aftermath.

[Adam Grant]

Hey, it's Adam Grant from Work Life, a podcast from ted. This episode is brought to you by freshworks. Freshworks believes that complexity is the enemy of efficiency. So stop wrestling with bloated, expensive service software that takes forever to implement an update where ROI is someday, not today. You've been overcharged and underserved for way too long. Uncomplicate with Fresh Service for IT and Fresh Desk for customer support. And with Freshworks AI assisted service software, you'll work smarter, not harder. Freshworks uncomplicates.

[BetterHelp]

Learn [e-mail] BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

[Nicholas Kristof]

What I have seen since is a monumental increase in waste and abuse. You know, goods sitting in warehouses unused as children die. The cost of dismantling a program turns out to be really, really expensive.

[Anna Hickey]

It's the Law Firm Podcast. I'm Anna Hickey, associate editor of communications, with Nicholas Kristof, New York Times opinion columnist.

[Nicholas Kristof]

The collapse of USAID is a gift to China. We are now competing with China in Africa, for example, for goodwill for rare earth minerals. And one way we compete is by saving lives.

[Anna Hickey]

Today we're going to discuss the impact of President Trump's decision to freeze foreign assistance and dismantle the U.S. agency for International Development on the communities that had relied on that aid and on U.S. national security. The Trump administration has canceled 84% of USAID contracts and fired 93% of agency staff. And on July 1, the remaining staff and grants were absorbed by various bureaus within the State Department. But before we dive into what's been going on this year, Nick, can you explain to listeners kind of who you are and how you first ended up reporting, reporting on USAID and humanitarian assistance and foreign aid?

[Nicholas Kristof]

Sure. And great to be with you. It's an important topic. So I became interested in kind of global development issues when I was escaping torts and contracts as a student of law in Britain at Oxford University. Oxford has a great vacation system. I was on a scholarship that paid large stipends and I was interested in journalism. So I escaped each vacation and spent a lot of time in Africa, in Asia. And, you know, it is kind of heartrending when you go to a place like Mali or Niger and you see so many people who have been blind unnecessarily from diseases like river blindness or who have leprosy, things that are eminently treatable, who aren't getting an education. And so I became increasingly interested in these kind of global health and development issues. And then later, when I became a journalist at the New York Times, having fully fled law, I, you know, I started out covering international economics and exchange rates and oil prices and so on. But I was really drawn to these issues of humanitarian reporting because it felt like that is where one can really make an important difference.

[Anna Hickey]

Before this year, before you're reporting trips this year, when you were going to different countries, what kind of work did you see? USAID on the ground when you were going to Africa or Asia?

[Nicholas Kristof]

So in previous years, if you had asked me about usaid, I might have complained about, oh, they're so bureaucratic, so much of the money goes to beltway bandits. And, you know, all that is true. There could have been some useful reforms, but it's also true, and I saw it in country after country, that USAID was saving more lives than any agency in federal government. Estimates are maybe 3 million lives a year on a pretty modest budget. And so whether it is the PEPFAR initiative that George W. Bush started to fight aids, or the malaria initiative, or work in neglected tropical diseases, I mean, you just manifestly see lives being saved. And one of the things that I've been able to see in the arc of my reporting career is enormous improvements in global well being that I think many Americans don't appreciate. When I graduated from college, 41% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty. Now we're down to less than 10%. You know, when I was a kid, a majority of human beings had always been illiterate. And now we're pushing 90% adult literacy. And, you know, a lot of that, not all of it, but a lot of that is because of the work of usaid. We were saving lives, you know, every few seconds around the globe. And that is, that became much, much less true after January when President Trump took office and dismantled usaid.

[Anna Hickey]

So kind of thinking about what happened in January, USAID ended up in the crosshairs of Doge and Elon Musk, members of the Trump administration, criticized the agency as corrupt and wasteful beyond repair and run by r radical left lunatics. You've mentioned that USAID did, in your view, require some reforms. How did you view the criticisms coming out of the Trump administration in January and February? And did they match at all with how you thought of USAID and the criticisms you had? Did you see wasteful spending when traveling around the world and reporting on the United States foreign aid and humanitarian assistance?

[Nicholas Kristof]

The criticisms were essentially ridiculous. You know, this is an organization that has lost about a hundred people on the front lines around the world in conflicts while trying to help others. This is a group of people who have sacrificed income well being to try to help others around the world. They represent the best of the American bureaucracy. And you know, were there problems? Absolutely. And is it true that there were often, you know, liberals who kind of went too far in their programs? Again, absolutely. During Democratic administrations, USAID tended to adopt, you know, various liberal programs that weren't always very evidence based. And then in Republican administrations, Republicans adopted various conservative programs that weren't very evidence based and didn't always work very effectively. So for example, the George W. Bush administration adopted a lot of abstinence only programs to try to fight aids. And that money, you know, did not work. Well, that was an example of waste, fraud and abuse or not wasn't fraud, but it was a certain amount of waste. But, you know, these were really at the margins. And what I have seen since is a monumental increase in waste and abuse. You know, goods sitting in warehouses unused as children die. The cost of dismantling a program turns out to be really, really expensive. And so it just breaks my heart to see a program that was doing so much good around the world in moral terms and also in advancing American interests as well as values, and have a bunch of folks in Washington who had no idea what they were doing and took it apart in ways that are causing kids to die every day.

[Anna Hickey]

On that note, it's when asked about the transition of the remaining grants and remaining work formerly that USAID had done to the State Department, a senior State Department official said, we do not see a gap operationally. In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said no one had died due to the pause and cuts in usaid. And in March, Elon Musk said, quote, no one has died as a result of a brief pause to do a sanity check on foreign aid funding, end quote. You visited places impacted by USAID like South Sudan and Kenya and Sierra Leone and Liberia this year. What have you seen? Does this match to what you have seen in these countries in Africa?

[Nicholas Kristof]

I saw kids dying. I would love to take Elon Musk and Marco Rubio along on a trip to show them the consequences of their actions. And so, for example, when I arrived in South Sudan in March to test this proposition that no one had died, in my first hour of reporting on the ground, I found multiple cases of kids who had died because we had cut off their access to antiretrovirals for HIV aids. And you know, one was a five year old boy called Evan Anzo who was an AIDS orphan, you know, and then the social workers who provided him with those ARVs were, were fired. How is a 5 year old boy in Juba, South Sudan, possibly expected to find ARVs on his own? And of course he couldn't. And so his immune system was compromised and he got an opportunistic infection of pneumonia and he died. And he was being kept alive for less than 12 cents a day with ARVs until Elon Musk showed up and just dismantled the program. And then at that hearing that you mentioned with Marco Rubio, one of the members of Congress displayed a picture of Evanonzo that I'd been given and Marco Rubio dismissed that as a lie. And it just feels to me like such an insult to these kids who were dying that you not only take away their medications and cause their deaths, but then you try to erase them from history. And you, you know, you don't even deny. It's not that you say, okay, there are difficult trade offs and we, we accept some deaths because we want to spend the money at home or we want to spend the money on tax breaks for the wealthy here in America. No, you just deny the reality. And nobody who travels in these countries can be unaware that kids are dying, that moms are dying in childbirth all the time.

[Anna Hickey]

Your first trip to South Sudan and Kenya was during that initial foreign aid pause. And then your latter trip, Sierra Leone and Liberia, was kind of after a large amount of gutting of the agency had been conducted. Did you see any major changes in whether or not any programs that had been paused previously had been unpaused? When you revisited Africa and Sierra Leone and Liberia later in the year, or did the programs seem to be continuing to be cut and not necessarily restarted?

[Nicholas Kristof]

So there's been movement in both directions, frankly. So there are some programs that had been paused or canceled, particularly around pepfar, that were revived to some degree. And so in South Sudan, for example, I think things are working a little bit better now in that HIV AIDS community of AIDS orphans, for example. I mean, I think perhaps partly because I wrote about it, but overall in the development space, I'd say things are getting worse. And that's because stockpiles are running out of medicines of nutritional support, and because families supplies are running out, their stockpiles of resources are running out and they're getting weaker. So, you know, on this trip, for example, I was in a village in Liberia, and the US had provided a ambulance to reduce maternal mortality. We paid $50,000. And then we had the idea that we wanted to stop providing fuel for that amb. And so, you know, the fuel supply in the tank ran out. And in April, I was in a village where a woman named Yama Freeman, a mother of two, she went into labor. She was in obstructed labor. She hemorrhaged. And the family called up that ambulance crew, and the ambulance crew said, well, the fuel in the tank has run out, and if you want the ambulance, somebody's got to come here and bring fuel. And of course, you know, they couldn't do that. So 10 of the strongest men in the village wrapped her, wrapped Yama up in a hammock. They put her on their shoulders, and they, they ran down the path toward the hospital, which was more than 10 miles away. And she was bleeding and she didn't make it. She died en route. And so, you know, you want to talk about waste, that was, that's a waste of a $50,000 vehicle that the US had provided. But it's also a waste of a mother of two who died for want of a tiny amount of fuel without any kind of, you know, discussion with the local authorities about trying to provide some alternate source of fuel, working with NGOs or anything else. It was just utterly reckless and reflected a complete disregard for human life.

[Anna Hickey]

You know, Americans tend to have a more negative view on providing foreign assistance to other countries. I'm sure some people would say, I mean, this is all very sad, but in America, we also face a maternal mortality crisis. And why can't the Liberian government, you know, provide fuel for that ambulance once the ambulance is over there, why couldn't the Liberian government provide fuel? What did you see on the ground there that might, you know, provide some resistance to that government providing for its citizens?

[Nicholas Kristof]

So I guess I'd say a couple of things. One is that a lot of these governments are really impoverished. And so if you're the Liberian government, then you had to figure out are your Scarce resources better spent providing bed nets to protect kids from malaria or anti malarial medicine or free maternal care, for example, free C sections so that women actually deliver in health sections. Or you know, do you take money from that, from those needs to provide fuel for the ambulance? And those are really hard choices. And if there is discussion, then they can try to help make those choices. But in this case, the US just pulled out immediately after Liberia had already created its health budget. Now, Americans also tend to talk a lot about corruption in poor countries and bad governance. And that is also true. I mean, maybe the world's worst humanitarian crisis right now is in Sudan. And that's because you have a couple of warlords who are fighting to the last child. But it's not obvious to me that we should be punishing the children in Sudan because they had, they made the bad choice of being born in Sudan rather than in New Jersey. And you know, so much depends on the lottery of life. If we hold that all human lives have equal value, then I think we should try to do what we can when it's inexpensive to save some lives. We can't save every life, but that doesn't mean we should save none. And I guess I'd also make the point that it's not just about values, but it's also about our interests. When President Kennedy started USAID in 1961, he did it to reflect our national security interests. And you know, the collapse of USAID is a gift to China. We are now competing with China in Africa, for example, for goodwill for rare earth minerals. And one way we compete is by saving lives. And people really do appreciate it. They understand it. The USAID logo is one of the best known around the world. In March, I was in a village in South Sudan and it had never had any kind of health care facility. And then to reduce maternal mortality, the US provided funds through the UN Population Fund to build the first maternal clinic in November. And so I show up and people see this white guy asking about, you know, this clinic. And everybody comes out and they thank me and they say, the elders were telling me, you know, women here aren't dying anymore. There hadn't been one maternal death or one neonatal death since that clinic went up. That US funded clinic went up in November and there was a woman who was presently in labor and she asked my name and she wanted to name her baby after me out of gratitude toward the US and, and what they didn't know was that because of the USAID funding cuts and the complete withdrawal of all funding for the UN Population Fund was that that clinic was now about to be closed and women again were going to be bleeding to death in the dust there. And you know, that is a moral insult to the idea that all lives have equal value. But it's also a loss of our soft power and China is winning that game. China has been quite deliberately moving into some of these places as we pull out.

[Anna Hickey]

And when you've talked to people who have been impacted by these cuts or this aid freeze, what has been the reaction? Do they blame usaid? Do they blame the American people? Does anybody mention President Trump or the changing administration? How aware are they of like, the politics of America impacting, you know, their health and safety?

[Nicholas Kristof]

So at the village level, in the really remote villages, people have no idea who the president of the US is. They in some cases haven't even heard of Trump. They tend to know that the US provides a lot of assistance and they tend to know about usaid, but in a very vague way. And so they understand that USAID is being cut back and that that may be the reason why condoms are now unavail, antimalarial medications are no longer available, but it's only in a pretty vague way. On the other hand, you know, in the cities and among health workers, people are very aware. I talked to some folks in a PEPFAR program in Beau Sierra Leone where a bunch of people had died from when ARVs were cut off and they completely made the connection to President Trump and they were aware of his cutbacks in USAID and pepfar and they drew that link immediately.

[Podcast Host]

You know folks, most of us are numb to it now, but wow, this has been a wild ride. AI is coming for your job. Geopolitical changes are disrupting century old alliances and the market is reacting in ways we've never seen before. So it's no wonder that most of us are boring, buckling down, saving and looking for ways to protect our futures. One way sure to protect your future is life insurance. I hate to say it, but you're probably underinsured, you're overpaying and underprotected, especially if your policy is through your job. That's why I'm finding a new life insurance policy with Select Quote. For more than 40 years, select quote has been one of the most trusted brokers in insurance, helping More than 2 million Americans secure over $700 billion in coverage. Their mission is simple. To find you the right insurance policy for your unique needs. They shop, you save. No medical exam, no problem. They partner with providers offering same day coverage. Of up to $2 million without needing to visit your doctor. It's not like one size fits all. Life insurance companies Select Quote licenses agents to work for you in as little as 15 minutes. They'll compare policies from top rated carriers to find you the best fit for your health and your budget and they work for you for free. Have high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease? Select Quote has partners with policies designed for many pre existing health conditions so you get the protection you deserve. Head to selectquote.com and a licensed insurance agent will call you right away with the right policy for your life and your budget. Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Select Quote they shop, you save. So get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than [e-mail] LawFair save more than 50% on term life [e-mail] to get started. That's SelectQuote.com LawFair.

[Nicholas Kristof]

This is car Tracks with Turtle Wax. Your car says a lot about you. So if we asked your car what it would say about you, what would it say? Listen, you dropped one of those tiny cheeseburgers under the seat like last week.

[Howie Mandel]

And now we're both dry heaving at the stench.

[Nicholas Kristof]

Do us a favor grab grab some Turtle Wax and let's get to work. This has been Car Tracks with Turtle Wax. You are how you car ready to.

[Adam Grant]

Level up your everyday Quint makes premium essentials without the premium price tag. From quality clothing and stylish accessories to travel staples and high end home goods, Quint has it all. And by partnering directly with top artisans and ethical factories, Quint delivers high quality at half the cost of similar brands. Shop elevated essentials without the markup at quints. Go to quints.com LevelUp for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com LevelUp avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows home so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte, paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros to see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today.

[Anna Hickey]

To drill down on the point of how the dismantling of U.S. foreign assistance impacts national security. When people talk about oh like President Trump or the US withdrawing aid, does that impact their view of like America as a whole, does it make them? When You've talked to people. Do they seem to have a more negative view of America, a more positive view of China? What has been like the impact when you've talked to people?

[Nicholas Kristof]

So look, I think that people's attitudes towards different countries are complicated and they like America partly because they saw a Tom Cruise movie or they listened to Taylor Swift. But they also do understand that USAID has provided food, has provided assistance in natural disasters. And you know, meanwhile they see China, for example, building new highways or they often build, you know, arenas for soccer stadiums for soccer and other sports. And you know, that creates support as well. And so there's no one metric for this competition. But USAID is certainly a very substantial element of that, of what is shaping their views toward the US and you know, I guess I'd also just make the point that national security isn't just about soft power, although that's one element of it. But another is health security. And we protect America with aircraft carriers in the western Pacific or in the Gulf, but we also protect America with surveillance systems to detect new diseases, to respond to Ebola or tuberculosis elsewhere before they can spread to the US and that health surveillance system has been devastated by the collapse of USAID and by the withdrawal now in the works from the World Health Organization. I think that is a incredibly narrow minded and myopic view of national security if you disregard the health element of it.

[Anna Hickey]

And can you explain what these health surveillance systems are? What were they actually doing? What were people doing to surveil health? And how would that impact Americans? Because I think there may be a sense of maybe there's an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but that is an ocean and a world's away. Why would that then come and impact me living in Washington D.C. sure.

[Nicholas Kristof]

So, you know, you look at the Ebola outbreak, for example, in West Africa, and that was contained in West Africa. I mean, there was a real risk that it was going to get to Nigeria, explode there and start traveling around the world in ways that would have killed many Americans, would have been something like the pandemic that we did get later with COVID And there are other diseases as well. I mean, tuberculosis. If you get a multidrug resistant tuberculosis, or even worse, extremely drug resistant tuberculosis, xdr, tb, then that in the US costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat. And it is so much more cost effective to try to stop that outbreak of Ebola in the drc, in, you know, in West Africa or elsewhere. There was a, an outbreak of Ebola in, I think it was maybe February. And normally the US Helps ship the samples that are taken to labs. And all of a sudden, USAID wasn't there to do that. And the World Health Organization stepped in for that step. But, you know, the WHO was also getting its funds cut. And at some point, you know, there are going to be shortcuts taken. More diseases will spread in rather unpredictable ways. And I don't know if it's going to be Ebola. I don't know if it's going to be tb. I don't know if it's going to be some new avian flu. But, you know, in the same way, we don't quite know, is China going to make a move on Taiwan? Is it going to make a move on the Philippines? There's a lot of uncertainty in all aspects of national security. And we respond by creating surveillance systems, intelligence systems, surveillance systems at sea and the air. And we also do that with health security. And these are really cheap, considering the potential costs, as we saw with COVID.

[Anna Hickey]

Also on the point that if the US or as the US Kind of retracts from foreign aid and humanitarian assistance, China might step up, some people might say, great, then America doesn't have to worry about that anymore. We can save that money and put it towards Americans. China can step up and help all these people in Africa or Asia or wherever USAID had their programs. What would your argument be for why Americans should be concerned on China expanding influence in countries that America had previously had influence in?

[Nicholas Kristof]

So, for example, if I think over the next 10 years, what the biggest potential catastrophe would be, I think it's probably a US China war that would be started by some incident in the Taiwan Strait or possibly in the South China Sea. And how do we reduce the risk of that happening? I think it's partly by making China realize that it would pay an enormous economic and military price if it were to engage in such behavior. How would we determine that economic sanctions, for example, would be broadly applied around the world? In part by having a lot of friends and allies around the world, by having American soft power respected, and I should also say in part by being able to access rare earth minerals, for example, from Congo or Rwanda or other countries. And so, you know, one of the things that I think we've learned is that allies and international friends really do matter. One of the weaknesses of Russia and Iran and China, for that matter, in international politics is they don't have a lot of those kinds of friends, which is precisely why Xi Jinping of China has mounted a real international Effort, his belt and road initiative to try to spend hundreds of billions of dollars winning friends around the world, because he sees that there is an economic and political and military return for doing so. And you know, Marco Rubio was one of the advocates who emphasized the importance of these kinds of investments in soft power because there were real benefits to the US and he thought that until the moment he was appointed Secretary of State.

[Anna Hickey]

You've also written that, you know, USAID was the agency that united humanitarian values and the US national interest. Some would say that, you know, the State Department can pick up this baton. They are also a, you know, executive agency that has done a lot of diplomatic work. How have you seen the State Department in your reporting on humanitarian assistance kind of working with USAID or usaid? And are you watching anything over the next few months to see how well that they can continue the work that they choose to continue from usaid?

[Nicholas Kristof]

It wasn't a completely crazy idea to move USAID into the State Department, and there have been others who have advocated that over the years. But the way to do it, I mean, I should say that I'm still skeptical of the idea, but it wasn't a completely crazy notion. But the way to do it would be to absorb the staff and the programs of usaid, not to fire everybody from usaid. There is a huge loss of institutional memory, of knowledge. And the way a lot of these programs tend to be done is with a lot of interlocking parts. So the British aid agency will pay for one element, the US will pay for another, and so on and so on. And so when you lose these programs and these staff, then it becomes very difficult to put Humpty Dumpty together again. And even if you have some elements that are intact now, all of a sudden there's no warehouse to store medicines in or there's no one providing the transport from medicines, you know, here to there, or there's nobody to do the testing to see who needs it. I mean, for example, in Liberia they were running out of HIV test kits, so they were no longer able to test pregnant women coming in for prenatal care to see if they were HIV positive. Which means that then you don't know who to give the drugs to to prevent mother to child transmission, to save that baby from being infected in childbirth. And so there has been such chaos in the system, nobody really knows what is going on. And that too has led to waste. I, you know, one of the things that always gets me is seeing children who are starving because they, you know, they don't cry, they don't scream, they don't complain. They just look at you with this blank expression, moving very slowly. And that's because the human body is preserving every calorie of energy to keep the major organs going and not to protest even though they are in such pain. And so you see that and it just, it wounds you. And then as I was seeing that, I found that the US had paid for and was and owned 678,000 boxes of this miracle peanut paste RUTF that brings these children back from the brink. And yet it was sitting in warehouses in Rhode island and in Georgia. And in fact the US had agreed to pay storage costs for this RUTF in Rhode island even though it was unwilling to ship the RUTF to alleviate the starvation of these children. What kind of a world is that where we buy this life saving substance, we pay storage costs on it, we allow it to approach its expiration date, to gather dust, but we're not capable and competent enough to actually move it so it can actually save lives.

[Anna Hickey]

On that, thinking about other things that you've seen during your reporting. There was one woman who I remember in, I can't remember which country you were in, but you wrote that even though she was no longer being paid by usaid, she was continuing to wear her vest. And I wanted to ask about any of the Foreign Service nationals or people who were from the countries who were employed by USAID and people you met there who were still trying to do the work even though they were not getting paid and what their view of this situation was. And kind of, if you have any.

[Nicholas Kristof]

Thoughts on that, I think there were a lot of folks, both American nationals and foreign nationals, who were really proud of their mission with usaid. And you know, did they acknowledge that there were problems and that it was bureaucratic? Absolutely. But you know, at the grassroots level, you just can't help seeing lives that are being helped and transformed and saved all the time. And so they felt really proud of that and they felt proud of wearing the USAID vests. And so in several countries I saw these health workers, even though they hadn't been paid, even though they officially weren't working, even though they weren't getting new medicines, they were going out in the villages person to person, offering whatever counsel they could, you know, trying to figure out if a child has malaria and if so, you know, making sure that the mom went to the hospital to try to with that baby to try to get some anti malaria medication to save its life or that if a child had Diarrhea, then trying to make sure he was getting enough liquids. Things like this, really simple things that are utterly life saving. You know, I think they're, they're proud of the role that they played. They're regarded with great respect in the villages. There is, there's a group called Last Mile Health that does a lot of this in Liberia and other countries and, and they could see the good work they were doing. But now they were handicapped because they weren't getting their anti malarial medications, they weren't getting condoms or other forms of contraception to distribute. And so they were seeing people around them die unnecessarily. And when you see that up close, it wounds you. It's pretty heartbreaking.

[Anna Hickey]

If in 18 months or, you know, I think it's three and a half years during an ex Congress or next presidential administration, there is a interest to either rebuild humanitarian assistance from the State Department or rebuild usaid. Do you believe that there is, given what you've seen over the last six months, an interest of people to rely on the United States again? Or maybe it's too early to tell on how people may trust the US going forward?

[Nicholas Kristof]

I think that in the development space there's more of a willingness to trust the US again. I think that is less true in the case of NATO. And you know, in like, I don't know to what extent Japan and South Korea and the Philippines and Australia are going to feel confidence in the US in the western Pacific. But I do think that in South Sudan, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, these places, moms are desperate to keep their kids alive. And if aid can be revived and they can again get medicines, you know, that will be really welcome. There's obviously been so much institutional knowledge that is lost. It'll, it'll take time to rebuild and there are people dying in the meantime. And you know, so I mentioned that mom in Liberia, in that village who died, so now she's got two orphans and they're at greater risk as well. But is there some capacity down the road to rebuild? A lot of it, yeah. And I hope that will happen.

[Anna Hickey]

And to kind of wrap up our discussion, is there anything else you saw in South Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone or Kenya that you want to mention or you wish I had asked about or the broader humanitarian assistance field and its connection to the U.S. natural Interest and national security?

[Nicholas Kristof]

Look, we can't save every life out there and inevitably it is going to be higher risk to be born and grow up in South Sudan or somewhere like that, but we can save lives and Improve, well, being very inexpensively. And if any of us saw a child, you know, drowning in a creek nearby, we would immediately step over and try to help that child. We wouldn't say, oh, I might get a little mud on my shoes. And for a lot less than the cost of new shoes, we can save lives of young children in, I mean, in countries all around the world. One of the things that struck me in particular was I was in Sierra Leone and I visited a warehouse where there were millions of doses of medicine that had been donated by American and European companies to help these kids. In particular, there's a disease called river blindness that causes excruciating blindness. And it has been partly because of Jimmy Carter, bless his soul, there has been enormous reductions in river blindness and because the medicine is donated, in that case by Merck. So these are incredibly cost effective. And every dollar spent on Distribution leverages $26 in donated medicines. It's transformative. And yet this medicine, because the Trump administration canceled that distribution program, it's sitting in this warehouse. 7.6 million doses of that medicine for river blindness, plus several million more doses of deworming medicine and schistosomiasis medicine. And the upshot is it's approaching expiration. It's gathering dust. At some point, if it's not distributed, then it will have to be incinerated at cost, at enormous cost and perhaps some risk. And, you know, the idea that we would just let these donated drugs sit there and rot and expire rather than help millions of people avoid blindness, it's just a complete failure of empathy, a complete failure of practicality. And it's an embarrassment as an American that we let this happen.

[Anna Hickey]

And I think on that note, we'll end the conversation there. I'll say I look forward to your future columns, any reporting you do. It's been invaluable in understanding what the the end of foreign aid and humanitarian assistance means for US Security and people around the globe.

[Nicholas Kristof]

Thank you so much.

[Anna Hickey]

The Lawfare podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad free versions of this and other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare material supporter at our website, lawfairmedia.org support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Look out for our other podcasts, including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath, and Escalation. Our latest Law Fair Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. Check out our written [e-mail] the podcast was edited by Jen Pacha. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening.

[Podcast Host]

Here's a stat that stops people in their Tracks Nearly half of American adults say they would suffer financial hardship within six months if they lost their primary income earner. If that stat hits close to home, you're not alone and you're not out of options. Policygenius makes finding and buying life insurance simple, ensuring that your loved ones have a financial safety net they can use in case something happens to you. Whether to cover debts and routine expenses or even to invest the money and earn interest over time, you can compare quotes from top insurers and find coverage that fits your needs and your budget. With Policygenius, you can find life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage. It's an easy way to protect the people you love and feel good about the future. A few years ago, my financial advisor came to me and said, you need more life insurance. He said, look, imagine if something happened to you. Your family'd be okay for a while, but do you want them to have to think about where the next bills are being paid from? So I just did it and it feels great. And now I don't think about it anymore. PolicyGenius simplifies the process of shopping for life insurance. It helps you compare your options by getting quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks. To find your lowest price, talk to a team of licensed agents who will walk you through the process step by step app. They answer questions, handle paperwork, and advocate for you throughout the process. They lay out all your options very clearly. Coverage, amounts, prices, terms. No guesswork, just clarity. Life insurance is a form of financial planning and policy genius is the country's leading online marketplace. It has thousands of five star reviews on Google and trustpilot it from customers who found the best policy fit for their needs. So secure your family's future with Policygenius. Head to Policygenius.com to compare free life insurance quotes from the top companies and to see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com.

[Howie Mandel]

There's a part of me that everyone sees. I'm Howie Mandel, the comedian. Apparently I know what funny is. Funny bought me a house. But I also know what isn't funny. Ocd. I've lived with OCD my entire life and people throw the term around like it's no big deal. But OCD is severe, often debilitating. It's a mental health condition that involves unrelented unwanted thoughts that can make you question your character, your beliefs, even your safety. General therapy can help with some things, but for ocd, it can actually make things worse. That's why I want to tell you about NO cd. NO CD is the world's largest treatment provider for OCD and is covered by Insurance for over 155 million Americans. Their licensed therapists specialize in ERP, the most effective treatment for OCD. If you think you might be struggling with OCD, go to nocd.com to book a free 15 minute call. They are here to help.