American Aid or American Risk? Congressman Scott Perry’s Alarming Exposé on USAID and the Funding of Terror

Introduction: The Question No One Wants to Ask

In the hushed confines of a Capitol Hill hearing room, a moment of rare candor shattered the routine of congressional oversight. The microphones had not failed, but the silence was deafening. Congressman Scott Perry, in a voice tinged with urgency and frustration, asked the question few in Washington dare to confront: What if American tax dollars, intended to uplift and stabilize the world’s most fragile regions, were instead fueling the very terror networks sworn to destroy the West?

For years, USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—has been the cornerstone of America’s humanitarian outreach, a symbol of compassion and global leadership. But Perry’s remarks, grounded in figures, names, and documented patterns of abuse, suggested a far darker reality: that oversight had collapsed, that billions were vanishing into the shadows, and that the mission had, in some corners of the world, become indistinguishable from chaos.

This is not just political rhetoric. It is a national security alarm.

USAID: Noble Intentions, Troubling Outcomes

USAID was created by executive order in 1961, a Kennedy-era vision to project American power for the good of all. Over the decades, its budget ballooned to $40–$50 billion annually, with programs spanning education, health, women’s empowerment, and infrastructure across the globe.

But as Perry laid out, the agency’s noble intentions have been hijacked by the realities on the ground—especially in regions where terror networks hold sway. The claims were not abstract. They were brutally specific.

“If our enemies were asked to design a foreign aid program that would actively undermine the United States of America at maximum cost to the taxpayer, they would be hard-pressed to create a scheme more effective than USAID,” Perry declared.

Afghanistan: Aid in the Hands of the Taliban

In August 2021, the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban in control. Since then, Perry argued, the situation has only deteriorated. Taliban forces now threaten NGO workers, claim credit for USAID distribution, interfere with the delivery of aid, tax beneficiaries and delivery services, steal food, divert funds, extort citizens for “protection,” and create sham procurement schemes. Those who resist are threatened, and sometimes killed.

All this, Perry insisted, was happening with full knowledge of the U.S. government. The Taliban is officially classified as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization” by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Yet, in 2024 alone, the U.S. spent $697 million in Afghanistan, including $534 million in USAID funds. This is on top of regular cash shipments—every 10 days, $40–$80 million in hard currency lands in Kabul.

Who controls Afghanistan’s aid? Perry named names: Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the Haqqani network—a group with deep ties to al-Qaeda and implicated in countless attacks on Americans and Afghans alike. Abdullah bin Laden, another figure with direct connections to global jihad. Perry’s point was chilling: American money is funding the very infrastructure of terror.

The Illusion of Progress: Women’s Empowerment and Education

The narrative Americans have been sold is one of progress—schools built, women empowered, children educated. Perry dismantled this illusion with hard facts. Programs like “Operation Enduring Sentinel” and “Women’s Scholarship Endowment” receive tens of millions annually, but the Inspector General’s own reports confirm that the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public, let alone attend school. The money, Perry insisted, is not reaching its intended recipients.

In Pakistan, USAID spent $840 million over 20 years on education, including $136 million to build 120 schools. Yet there is zero evidence that any of these schools exist. Inspectors cannot get in to verify. Another $20 million went to educational television programs for children who cannot attend physical schools—because the schools don’t exist.

“You paid for it. Somebody else got the money. You are paying for terrorism,” Perry said.

A System Designed for Abuse?

Perry’s critique went beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. He described a system where aid is taxed, stolen, diverted, and used as leverage by terror groups. The Taliban and similar organizations have become experts in manipulating humanitarian aid, using it to fund madrasas, terrorist training camps, and operations by ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and ISIS-Khorasan.

The outcomes, Perry argued, are what matter—not the intentions. If terrorist organizations control the ground, tax the aid, divert the resources, and threaten those who resist, then American compassion becomes a weapon against itself.

The Cost: Billions Lost, Lives Changed

The numbers are staggering. Over two decades in Afghanistan, the U.S. lost 22,500 Americans—killed or wounded—and spent over $2 trillion. Yet the spending continues, with little evidence of positive change. Perry’s frustration was palpable: **“We’re just going to keep on spending because somehow we think it’s going to get better.”**

The hearing revealed a pattern: aid intended for schools, food, and empowerment ends up funding the very networks that destabilize regions and threaten American interests.

Congressional Silence and Deflection

As Perry laid out his case, the room grew tense. Democrats, instead of confronting the documented failures, defended the institution itself. They spoke of patriotism, compassion, and history, yet avoided the core question: If the aid is being stolen, diverted, and weaponized by terrorists, why does the program continue without reform?

Perry did not attack humanitarian workers. He attacked a broken system—one that refuses accountability and punishes anyone who demands it. The Democratic response was to shield bureaucracy, dismiss oversight concerns, and frame scrutiny as betrayal.

“That is not leadership. That is deflection,” Perry said. “True compassion does not mean writing blank checks to regions controlled by terrorist networks. True leadership means stopping harm, even when it’s politically inconvenient.”

Oversight: The Missing Ingredient

The heart of Perry’s argument—and the heart of the controversy—is the collapse of oversight. Billions are spent with little verification, no accountability, and no consequences for failure. Inspector General reports go unread, recommendations go unheeded, and the cycle of abuse continues.

Perry called for a fundamental change: transparency, accountability, and the courage to follow the money all the way to its end. He demanded that Congress stop hiding behind narratives and start asking hard questions.

Human Cost: Taxpayers and Fallen Soldiers

Perry’s critique was not just fiscal. He invoked the memory of American taxpayers and fallen service members. Each dollar lost to corruption or terror is a betrayal—not just of those who pay, but of those who sacrificed.

“Democrats stood on narratives. I stood on facts, on national security, and on respect for American taxpayers and fallen service members,” Perry said.

The Broader Crisis: Trust in American Institutions

The implications of Perry’s exposé go far beyond USAID. They speak to a broader crisis: the erosion of trust in American institutions. When billions are spent with no results, when oversight is dismissed as betrayal, and when compassion is weaponized against itself, the very foundation of democracy is at risk.

Americans have watched for years as politicians evade responsibility, spin facts, and manipulate narratives. The result is cynicism, anger, and a sense that the system serves everyone but the people.

The Path Forward: Reform or Retreat?

Perry’s call to action was clear. The United States cannot afford to bankroll chaos while pretending to export compassion. The system must be reformed, oversight must be restored, and aid must be targeted and verified.

He challenged Congress to move beyond sentiment and symbolism—to demand receipts, follow the money, and ensure that American generosity does not become a weapon against itself.

“This has got to end,” Perry concluded.

Conclusion: Leadership in the Age of Evasion

As the hearing closed, one reality stood unshaken: Perry was the only voice in the room willing to follow the money, no matter how uncomfortable the truth appeared. While others offered praise and abstract appeals to American values, Perry brought receipts, figures, names, and documented patterns of abuse that could not be waved away.

The fight for transparency and accountability did not end with this hearing. If anything, it began anew.

History will judge who demanded answers when it mattered—and who chose to hide behind narratives. In an era where accountability is often sacrificed for convenience, Perry proved that courage still has a place in public service.

The challenge now is whether Congress and the American people will heed the warning—or whether billions more will vanish into the shadows, funding the very forces America is sworn to oppose.

In the end, the question remains: Is American aid building a better world, or bankrolling its destruction? The answer may depend on whether leaders are willing to follow the money—and face the truth.