OPINION: USAID, Elon Musk, and Why Nigeria Must Demand Full Transparency from Foreign-Funded Organizations

OPINION: USAID, Elon Musk, and Why Nigeria Must Demand Full Transparency from Foreign-Funded Organizations

By: Zagazola Makama

When Elon Musk and President Donald Trump’s administration moved to dismantle large portions of USAID’s operations in February 2025 through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the reaction across the world was immediate and deeply polarized.

To some, it was an attack on humanitarian assistance and development programmes that support vulnerable populations across Africa, Asia and Latin America. To others, it was a long-overdue attempt to expose what they viewed as an opaque international funding network operating beyond effective public scrutiny.

At the time, many Nigerians rushed to defend USAID and other international development organizations. Critics of the DOGE initiative accused Trump and Musk of targeting political opponents and undermining humanitarian work. Few were willing to entertain questions about how billions of dollars in foreign aid are distributed, monitored and accounted for.

More than a year later, however, the debate has not disappeared. Instead, it has intensified and gained tractions.

In Washington, lawmakers, researchers, journalists and policy analysts continue to debate whether U.S. foreign assistance programmes have, intentionally or unintentionally, financed organizations, projects or networks that later became linked to instability, extremism or political interference in foreign countries.

Supporters of the move argued that DOGE was simply demanding accountability and transparency for billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign assistance. According to them, legitimate lifesaving programmes were not eliminated but were instead transferred to the U.S. State Department for continued administration. Critics, however, argued that the cuts risked disrupting humanitarian programmes that millions of vulnerable people depended upon around the world.

The controversy quickly expanded beyond budgetary concerns and evolved into a broader debate about the true purpose of USAID and the role of foreign aid in advancing U.S. interests abroad.

One of the most significant allegations came from U.S. Congressman Scott Perry, who claimed during a congressional hearing that some U.S. foreign aid funding had found its way, directly or indirectly, to terrorist organizations including Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and ISIS-K. Perry cited concerns over oversight failures and questioned whether American taxpayers were unknowingly financing extremist networks through aid programmes operating in unstable regions.

The session, titled “The War on Waste: Stamping Out the Scourge of Improper Payments and Fraud,” focused on alleged misappropriations of taxpayer funds.
“Who gets some of that money? Does that name ring a bell to anybody in the room? Because your money, your money, $697 million annually, plus the shipments of cash funds in Madrasas, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorasan, terrorist training camps. That’s what it’s funding,” Perry

Perry further cited USAID’s reported funding of $136 million for building 120 schools in Pakistan, alleging that there was “zero evidence” of the schools’ construction.
Perry added, ” If you think that the programme under Operation Enduring Sentinel entitled Women’s Scholarship Endowment, which receives $60 million annually, or the Young Women Lead, which gets about $5 million annually, is going to women who, by the way, if you read the Inspector General’s report, is telling you that the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public, yet somehow you’re believing, and American people are supposed to believe, that this money is going for the betterment of the women in Afghanistan. It is not.

You are funding terrorism, and it’s coming through USAID. And it’s not just Afghanistan, because Pakistan’s right next door.
“USAID spent $840 million in the last year, the last 20 years, on Pakistan’s education-related programme. It includes $136 million to build 120 schools, of which there is zero evidence that any of them were built. Why would there be any evidence? The Inspector General can’t get in to see them.

But you know what? We doubled down and spent $20 million from USAID to create educational television programs for children unable to attend the physical school. Yeah, they can’t attend it, because it doesn’t exist. You paid for it. “Somebody else got the money. You are paying for terrorism. This has got to end.”he said.

The allegations attracted international attention, particularly in Nigeria, where Boko Haram and ISWAP insurgencies have caused widespread devastation over the past decade. However, the allegations remain disputed, and no definitive public investigation has yet established that USAID intentionally funded Boko Haram or other terrorist groups.

The debate also extended to USAID’s involvement in various countries around the world. Critics argued that USAID had long served as a tool of American political influence, pointing to its activities in countries such as Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Haiti and Kyrgyzstan. According to critics, USAID-funded programmes often coincided with political transitions, opposition movements or so-called “color revolutions.”

Documents released over the years, including diplomatic communications and investigative reports, have fueled claims that aid programs sometimes served broader geopolitical objectives beyond humanitarian assistance.

Supporters of USAID reject these claims and maintain that the agency’s programmes were designed to promote democracy, civil society development, governance reforms and economic growth rather than regime change.

Another major controversy involved USAID’s partnership with EcoHealth Alliance and research collaborations involving the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. Critics alleged that U.S.-funded research contributed to gain-of-function experiments that may have played a role in the emergence of COVID-19. Some commentators have argued that funding routed through EcoHealth Alliance helped support coronavirus research at the Wuhan laboratory.

These allegations gained traction after the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed millions of people globally and caused unprecedented economic disruption. However, the origins of COVID-19 remain the subject of ongoing scientific and political debate, and there is no universally accepted conclusion linking USAID funding directly to the creation of the virus.

Additional allegations raised by critics include claims that USAID funded controversial programmes in several countries, supported organizations later accused of misconduct, and operated projects that aligned closely with broader U.S. foreign policy objectives. Critics have also pointed to reports concerning Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries as evidence that aid programmes sometimes served strategic geopolitical purposes.

This is where Elon Musk’s intervention changed the conversation. Whether one admires him or opposes him, Musk forced public attention onto questions that many institutions preferred to avoid. He challenged long-standing assumptions about foreign aid. He questioned bureaucratic structures that had operated for decades with limited public scrutiny.

Supporters of DOGE and Elon Musk argue that these controversies justified a comprehensive review of USAID operations. They credit Musk with exposing weaknesses in oversight systems and forcing public scrutiny of foreign aid expenditures that had long escaped widespread attention.

In Nigeria, the debate gained further relevance after the House of Representatives established an ad hoc committee to investigate allegations that foreign aid funds may have been diverted to support Boko Haram activities. The committee’s work became controversial after civil society organizations and development partners criticized its demands as excessive and intrusive. Following consultations with stakeholders, the leadership of the House reportedly forced to halt further actions by the committee and encouraged a more collaborative engagement process.

The decision represented a missed opportunity to thoroughly investigate allegations involving aid funding, terrorism funding and national security, even when the civil society organizations sees it as a necessary step to protect legitimate humanitarian actors from undue interference.

Nigeria has suffered enormously from terrorism over the past two decades. Thousands of soldiers have been killed. Thousands of security personnel have been wounded. Entire communities have been displaced. Millions have lost homes, livelihoods and loved ones.

According to various estimates, insurgency-related violence across the Lake Chad Basin has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives either directly or indirectly. Given those realities, no responsible nation can afford to ignore questions about funding networks that may influence security dynamics.

What remains clear is that the controversy surrounding USAID has evolved into a much larger discussion about transparency, accountability and oversight of international aid programmes. While many allegations remain unproven, the debate has prompted renewed calls for stronger monitoring mechanisms, greater disclosure of funding flows and more rigorous auditing of aid programmes operating in conflict-affected regions.

The issue is particularly significant. Regardless of where one stands on the USAID controversy, many Nigerians agree that all organizations operating in conflict zones whether governmental, international or local should be subject to appropriate transparency and accountability measures. This does not mean every NGO is guilty. Far from it.

Many humanitarian organizations operating in Nigeria perform lifesaving work every day. They provide food, healthcare, education, water and protection services to populations that would otherwise face unimaginable hardship. Their contributions should be acknowledged and respected. However, acknowledging their work does not exempt them from scrutiny.

Transparency should not be feared by legitimate organizations. Any organization receiving millions of dollars in foreign funding and operating within Nigerian territory should be prepared to demonstrate where funds originate, how they are spent and who ultimately benefits.

The same standards should be applied to government agencies, private companies, political organizations and international development partners. Nigeria must move beyond the outdated assumption that every organization carrying a humanitarian label automatically deserves immunity from examination.

History has shown that international aid systems are not immune from abuse. Around the world, there have been documented cases of aid diversion, corruption, procurement fraud and programme manipulation. Today in Nigeria, we are witnessing how foreign funding are being used to promote FALSE narratives designed to destabilized the country.

In an age of information warfare and geopolitical competition, money often shapes outcomes long before weapons appear. Nigeria should therefore not wait for foreign governments to determine whether concerns about aid transparency deserve attention.

The ultimate goal should not be to shut down humanitarian assistance. The goal should be to ensure that every dollar, naira or euro entering the country serves the people it was intended to help and never becomes a tool for instability, manipulation or violence.

The lesson from the ongoing USAID debate is not that all aid is bad. The lesson is that all aid must be accountable. Nigeria must wake up to that reality. Our national security, sovereignty and future depend on it.

Zagazola Makama is a Counter Insurgency Expert and Security Analyst in the Lake Chad Region

OPINION: USAID, Elon Musk, and Why Nigeria Must Demand Full Transparency from Foreign-Funded Organizations