USAID, the agency once known for helping countries recover from disasters, fight poverty, and build sustainable futures, is getting a bit of a makeover. Forget clean water, education, and infrastructure—this administration has a better idea. Why not use American tax dollars to help developing nations drill for oil and gas? Because nothing says long-term economic stability quite like dependence on a dying industry.
The logic here, if you squint hard enough, is that promoting fossil fuel projects abroad will somehow lead to energy independence and economic prosperity. Because, of course, history has shown time and time again that oil-rich nations always end up stable, wealthy, and free from corruption (cough Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia cough). What could possibly go wrong?
Supporters of this shift claim it’s unfair to push renewables on developing nations without first letting them have their turn at oil-based economic growth. But let’s be real—this isn’t about fairness. It’s about profits, and Big Oil needs new markets now that the world is (slowly) waking up to the reality that burning fossil fuels is torching the planet. What better way to secure those markets than by repurposing foreign aid to build pipelines instead of schools?
Critics—aka anyone who understands climate change, economic instability, or basic logic—point out the glaring hypocrisy. USAID is supposed to help countries prepare for a climate-ravaged future, not actively make that future worse. We’ve spent decades watching oil-rich nations get exploited, endure environmental disasters, and suffer from economic volatility, but sure, let’s roll that strategy out on a global scale.
Meanwhile, China is out here financing solar farms, wind power, and green infrastructure across the developing world. The U.S., on the other hand, is about to show up with a briefcase full of oil contracts and a pat on the back. Great strategy—because what struggling nations really need is more pollution, more corporate exploitation, and an even bigger climate disaster to clean up.
If the goal were actually to help developing nations thrive, USAID would be investing in renewable energy, not locking countries into outdated, unstable fossil fuel economies. But hey, why build a future when you can just dig up the past and burn it?
Fighting this blatant fossil fuel cash grab disguised as “foreign aid” will require political pressure, public awareness, and grassroots activism. The first step is exposing the hypocrisy and corruption. This isn’t about lifting developing nations out of poverty—it’s about propping up an industry that’s rapidly losing favor in wealthier countries. Following the money and calling out which oil companies are behind this push will make it harder for the administration to pretend this is about “helping” anyone but corporate donors.
Public pressure is key. Raising awareness through social media, op-eds, and community discussions will make it harder for officials to quietly push this through. Targeting lawmakers—especially those who oversee foreign aid and energy policy—by flooding their offices with calls and emails demanding they block this policy could force them to take a stand. Organizing petitions and mass letter-writing campaigns to USAID leadership, Congress, and the White House will add even more pressure.
Holding politicians accountable is just as important. Elected officials love to talk about climate action and responsible foreign aid when it’s convenient. If they support this disaster of a policy, they should be exposed. If they oppose it, their voices should be amplified. Voters need to make it clear that they are watching.
International pressure can also play a role. Partnering with environmental organizations and advocacy groups outside the U.S. could help push back against this policy. Leaders of developing nations should be encouraged to reject fossil fuel-based aid in favor of renewable energy investments. The U.S. already lags behind China in financing clean energy abroad—making this policy even more embarrassing on the world stage.
Legal challenges could be another tool. Environmental and watchdog groups should explore whether this policy violates environmental regulations or contradicts U.S. foreign aid commitments. If international agreements like the Paris Agreement are at risk, legal action could be taken.
Building a counter-narrative is just as critical. This isn’t about denying developing nations access to energy—it’s about ensuring they get the right kind of energy for long-term stability. Instead of tying them to an industry that will eventually collapse, USAID should be funding clean energy, infrastructure, and climate resilience projects. The economic benefits of renewables already outweigh those of fossil fuels in many regions, making it even easier to challenge the administration’s weak justifications for this shift.
The fossil fuel industry has spent decades pushing the false narrative that oil equals prosperity. That myth needs to be dismantled. Many oil-rich nations remain deeply impoverished, their wealth concentrated in the hands of a few while their people deal with pollution, corruption, and instability. Sharing the stories of communities harmed by fossil fuel dependency will drive the point home.
Elections matter, and so does direct support for organizations fighting back. Electing leaders who will reverse this policy is crucial. Supporting progressive candidates who prioritize clean energy and real foreign aid will ensure policies like this don’t happen in the future. Climate advocacy groups and international organizations fighting for sustainable development will also need resources to challenge this in court, in Congress, and in the media.
This isn’t just another bad policy—it’s an active step backward that will harm developing nations, accelerate climate change, and make America look like an international fossil fuel lobbyist instead of a global leader. Public pressure has stopped bad policies before, and it can again. USAID was never meant to be a fossil fuel investment firm, and it’s up to us to make sure it doesn’t become one.
Comments