Trump Administration & Future Strategic Religious Engagement

Cuts to humanitarian and development agencies aiming to stop wasteful spending and decrease bureaucracy have instead negatively affected U.S. strategic engagement with faith-based groups according to panelists at a March 27 online seminar hosted by The Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs.

What does strategic religious engagement and the international promotion of democracy look like in this new age? Has the baby been thrown out with the bathwater?

Among the six panelists, Dr. Peter Mandaville, who held advisory roles at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. State Department, and the U.S Institute of Peace, spoke on Trump administration disbandment of USAID.

Created through an executive order by President John F. Kennedy, USAID historically worked in humanitarian assistance, economic development, international health, and conflict avoidance.

USAID became the target of the administration’s initiative to cut “waste, fraud, and abuse” in government spending known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), experiencing a massive reduction of force. The agency experienced an 83 percent cancellation in its program portfolio, stopping projects indefinitely, halting others, and firing a large number of staff. The development work of USAID is broadly expected to contract, with its remaining humanitarian efforts potentially brought under the umbrella of the U.S. State Department.

Other humanitarian and development organizations underwent similar disruption, including the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), a nonpartisan, independent organization working at the intersection of religion, peace and violence. Created in 1984 by Congressional act, USIP is an independent agency receiving government funding and legally prohibited from receiving contributions for program activities.

USIP recently became a target of DOGE, leading to the firing of all 10 of its board members and the appointment of State Department employee Kennett Jackson as its new president.

“Each year, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) receives $55M in congressional (taxpayer) funds. – Prior management would sweep excess funds into its private Endowment (zero congressional oversight). – In the past 10 years, USIP has transferred ~ $13M to its private endowment, mainly used for private events and travel,” DOGE posted about USIP.

Although USIP is an independent institution, it receives government funding. With the federal oversight changing the institute’s leadership, some claim its independent status is at “risk.” Since its creation, USIP has worked consistently for the past 38 years amid different presidential administrations. Only now has it received such institutional scrutiny and its independent status threatened, claimed Berkley Center research fellow Susan Hayward.

“Part of [USIP]’s strength in this space is it has been an independent institution… it’s been able to bring together people from the different political parties for discussions in a bipartisan manner, in a nonpartisan manner, and… it seems as if the USIP’s independence has been threatened to an extent and it’s being politicized,” explained Georgetown University Professor of International Relations Nicole Bibbins Sedaca.

“At the end of the day, the question is: what are the principles that will guide American foreign policy? How can people trust what a partnership with the United States looks like?” Sedaca asked. “The United States has long been a country that is for freedom – religious freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of belief, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press – and that’s what, despite all the challenges we had around the world, is something that people have been able to trust the United States fundamentally stands for.”

Sedaca asked what principles will underpin this next phase.

“What are we for as a nation?” asked Sedaca, a David Pfiel Fellow at the George W. Bush Institute.

From the future of foreign assistance, especially when it comes to matters regarded as compassionate (health assistance, refugee care, etc.), to the promotion of human liberty and the defense of freedom around the world, changing relationships with faith-based groups in other countries brings confusion to the future of U.S. strategic religious engagement.

National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) Vice President of Government Relations Galen Cary said that, as directed by the administration, parts of life saving work can continue at places such as USAID, such as food given amidst humanitarian crises. But, finances for the transportation of those distributing the food may be pulled.

Carey identified the biggest problem caused by layoffs and project cancellations as the disruption of community relationships, especially in villages or other rural areas. In this case, promises between the U.S. and these impoverished areas cannot be fulfilled by cutting government spending.

 “It takes a long time to develop [relationships] and can be very rapidly damaged, and the rebuilding process takes a long time,” Cary stated. 

The conversation concluded with Sedaca focusing on why foreign assistance is crucial to American foreign policy.

“Foreign assistance has long been an arm of American foreign policy,” Sedaca noted. She stated that President George W. Bush started the faith-based office not because he likes faith-based organizations, but because he recognized value in engaging with faith-based organizations “in order for the U.S. to have a foreign policy where we are advancing freedom around the world, we are creating opportunity at home, all of the things part of any president’s legacy.”

Sedaca stated that foreign assistance “is the tail of the foreign policy” arguing that it cannot be separated “as if this is a stand alone slush fund that has nothing to do with all the other elements of what the United States Government stands for and is trying to advance in service to the American people and in service to the world that we want the United States to be a part of.”