They Listened But Did Not Hear...
A member of the SCA Network shares notes from Friday's "listening session" with F Bureau...
On the afternoon of February 14, 2025, the F Bureau, led by Director Pete Marocco, held a listening session aimed at soliciting feedback on how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. foreign assistance, as well as to discuss the broader goals of the One America policy, which seeks to enhance U.S. security, prosperity, and global influence.
The session adhered to a textbook format—initial remarks followed by a moderated open-mic discussion. However, it is unlikely there will any meaningful action based on the feedback received. Despite the session’s stated purpose, it ultimately fell short in providing any substantive outcomes or tangible direction for U.S. foreign assistance policy. At best, this was a “tick the box” exercise, with no concrete follow-up or clear purpose.
Director Marocco did not provide any insights into the current review process nor clarify the strategic direction of foreign assistance, leaving participants without a clear understanding of how their feedback would be utilized. His comments emphasized strengthening the return on investment, notably with a simplistic “dollar out equals dollar in” approach to foreign assistance, which failed to account for the complexity of these investments.
The session was moderated by Brian Fonseca, a professor at Florida International University. (FIU has been at the forefront of Florida Governor Ron deSantis’ drive to politicize higher education and purge insufficiently loyal Republicans from public life.) Fonseca offered some bland commentary and reactions, but his main role was to insulate the State Department and deflect issues that might require a substantive response. He said that the speed and ruthlessness of the Administration’s actions as necessary because “true transformation requires disruption.” In conclusion, without apparent irony or awareness of the absurdity, Fonseca called on participants (and maybe his colleagues in the administration) to be "disruptive but deliberate... to drive real progress."
Key Observations:
Lack of Direction or Substance: F Bureau Director Pete Marocco opened the session with now familiar inflammatory exaggerations about the failures and waste in US foreign assistance programs, trotting out cliches about condoms, abortion, circumcisions, radicalism, transgender without much structure or logic.
Diverse Participation, but Limited Impact: Around 30 individuals participated from various sectors—agriculture, health, education, energy, climate, religious communities, and more. While there was good geographical diversity, with speakers from across the U.S. rather than just Washington, D.C., the overall lack of engagement with key decision-makers and the absence of any meaningful policy direction from USG made the session feel like a waste of time.
Private Sector Focus: There was an unusual emphasis on private sector participation, notably medical device companies, whose involvement felt misplaced and out of sync with the core objectives of the listening session. This distraction diverted attention away from the primary purpose of foreign assistance reform.
Valid Concerns Not Addressed: While most comments were constructive, only a few critical remarks stood out, such as the need to review compliance regulations to improve efficiency in foreign assistance programs. Several commenters also raised concerns over the sustainability of programs that are repeatedly renewed under new labels, but this critical feedback seemed largely ignored or downplayed.
A particularly relevant comment highlighted the importance of democracy, human rights and governance programming that has been done by both USAID and the State Department, and the damage that will be done to US interests by the cancellation of those programs.
Another comment - from a caller in Sarasota Florida appealing to the moderator’s Florida connections - focused on programs to promote trade and investment that have had significant benefits to US businesses, as well as interests such as reducing illegal immigration and reduction of conflict.
"Dollar Out = Dollar In" Fallacy: One of the more troubling aspects of the session was the fixation on the financial equivalency of foreign assistance, where the value of programs was reduced to a simplistic "dollar out equals dollar in" approach. A few participants pointed out the fallacy of this view, highlighting the broader, intangible benefits that U.S. organizations, universities, and companies gain from foreign assistance. The failure to address this misconception speaks to a deeper misunderstanding of the multifaceted nature of foreign assistance.
Support for Foreign Assistance, but Limited Action: It was encouraging to hear participants, particularly those from outside Washington, D.C., express support for USAID's work and recognize its value. However, the overwhelming sense from the session was that this support will not translate into meaningful policy change. The real concern is that the U.S. government is missing an opportunity to address adversarial influence in regions where U.S. presence is waning, notably due to the impact of Executive Orders (EOs) and Strategic Withdrawal Orders (SWOs).
Lara Logan: Former journalist Lara Logan was given time for a rambling diatribe on foreign assistance and the state of the world. What she said was less interesting than the screen name she provided, which was the name of an insurrectionist convicted of assaulting a police officer during at the US Capitol on January 6.
Actionable Takeaways for the International Development Sector:
Expand Engagement Beyond Washington: The international development community needs to do more to connect with Americans outside of Washington, D.C., particularly in states where foreign assistance has tangible impacts. The sector should prioritize outreach to these communities, ensuring they understand the strategic benefits of foreign assistance.
Clarify the Role of Foreign Assistance: Foreign assistance continues to be a nebulous and often misunderstood concept. It is essential to better distinguish between foreign assistance and other forms of U.S. international spending, such as defense budgets or overseas private sector investments. Developing clear, digestible talking points for a wide audience—particularly for the general public, religious leaders, and the private sector—is critical for building broad-based support.
Leverage Religious Communities as Advocates: Several religious leaders in attendance made strong cases for the continuation of foreign assistance, particularly in terms of its diplomatic and soft power benefits. There is an untapped opportunity to engage these religious communities more proactively as advocates for foreign assistance, using their influence to broaden support among their congregations and beyond.
Push for Comprehensive Policy Reviews: Many attendees raised concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of existing foreign assistance programs, particularly those that are perpetually renewed without adequate review. The international development sector should advocate for a comprehensive policy review of all foreign assistance programs, focusing on programmatic sustainability and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively.
Prepare for the Long Haul: Given the lack of clarity and follow-up from this session, it is crucial for the international development sector to remain vigilant. We must be prepared to continue pushing for reforms and demonstrate that foreign assistance is not just a Washington issue but one that impacts communities and organizations across the country. Active and sustained advocacy will be necessary to ensure that foreign assistance remains a strategic priority for U.S. foreign policy.
Conclusion: In summary, the February 14th listening session was a missed opportunity to advance substantive discussions on the future of U.S. foreign assistance. The session lacked direction, failed to address critical policy issues, and provided no clear path forward. If the U.S. government is genuinely committed to making foreign assistance more effective, it must move beyond performative exercises and engage in meaningful, policy-driven discussions. The international development sector must continue to advocate for the strategic value of foreign assistance, keeping the pressure on decision-makers and expanding outreach to non-DC communities that stand to benefit from these efforts.
(Text lightly edited through AI.)