The National Catholic Register recently published an editorial, “Separate the Wheat From the Chaff in US Foreign Aid,” attempting to balance support for President Donald Trump’s cuts to “rank ideological colonialism” while promoting USAID’s “humanitarian” work, particularly through Catholic Relief Services (CRS).

Unfortunately, the article overlooks USAID’s inherent ideological colonization. 

Even more disqualifying is this: Since its inception, the aid provided by USAID has been tied to population control. 

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which led to the creation of USAID and still governs its operations today, specifies “control of population growth” as one of the criteria used to determine whether a country is committed to “the most effective use of such assistance to help satisfy basic human needs of poor people.” [Sec. 102, (b)(4)]

In other words, no population control, no aid. 

Section 104 of the Act, entitled “Population and Health,” makes this explicit. It attacks “large families” and states that “uncontrolled population growth can violate otherwise successful development efforts.” “Economic progress,” the act insists, requires “effective birth control” and “effective family planning”:

“While every country has the right to determine its own policies with respect to population growth, voluntary population planning programs can make a substantial contribution to economic development, higher living standards, and improved health and nutrition.”

Driving the point home, the act instructs the president:

“In order to increase the opportunities and motivation for family planning and to reduce the rate of population growth, the President is authorized to furnish assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, for voluntary population planning. In addition to the provision of family planning information and services … population planning programs shall emphasize motivation for small families.”

The requirement to make population control an element of USAID’s operations is outlined in Section 104(d). The “Integration of Assistance Programs,” as the section is called, requires population-control measures to be included in every foreign development project. All assistance must focus on the interrelationship between “population growth” and “improvement in living standards.” All assistance programs must be reviewed for their impact on “population growth.” And, finally, “All appropriate activities proposed for financing under this chapter shall be designed to build motivation for smaller families.”

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is still in force today. What this means is that, for the past six decades, population control has been one of the chief tools used by USAID in its development projects. 

A significant portion of the assistance provided by USAID has been conditioned upon the goal of driving down birth rates. The agency has, in effect, been operated on the morally bankrupt principle that the best way to eliminate poverty is to eliminate the children of the poor. The act actually specifies:

“Population planning programs shall be coordinated with other programs aimed at reducing the infant mortality rate, providing better nutrition for pregnant women and infants, and raising the standard of living of the poor.”

What this means is that everything “good” about USAID — food aid, clean water, medical care, education — was driven in part by its population-control agenda. 

It is no accident that USAID has become the largest supplier of birth control and family-planning programs in the world. A 2020 USAID flier boasted that, due to its efforts, contraception use rose from under 10% in 1965 to 32% in 2020, while family size was reduced from more than six children to 4.2.

But it’s not just USAID. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which works hand in glove with USAID, also integrates family planning into nearly every aspect of its programs. 

In a May 2023 report by USAID titled “Comprehensive Agency Report on Condoms and Lubricants FY2022,” USAID indicated that between 2016 and 2022 — with funding from PEPFAR — a total value of $158.1 million condoms and lubricants were supplied to 61 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East, and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) regions.

In 2023 alone, USAID procured 354.8 million male condoms, 2.6 million female condoms and 33.8 million lubricants for 30 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and LAC. 

Given these known issues regarding USAID’s actions, CRS should have ceased to receive such funds back in 2012 when Pope Benedict XVI published his motu proprio “On the Service of Charity.” This established law of the Church — which has not been abrogated — states very clearly:

“[T]he diocesan Bishop is to ensure that charitable agencies dependent upon him do not receive financial support from groups or institutions that pursue ends contrary to Church’s teaching. Similarly, lest scandal be given to the faithful, the diocesan Bishop is to ensure that these charitable agencies do not accept contributions for initiatives whose ends, or the means used to pursue them, are not in conformity with the Church’s teaching” (10).

Since USAID and PEPFAR exist to propagate population control, and thus fit the description of “institutions that pursue ends contrary to the Church’s teaching,” CRS should be forbidden from taking their funds. 

The State Department will henceforth decide what aid projects will continue. We pray that, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio decides to send food aid to the hungry or provide shelter to the homeless, that the aid does not come with condoms and contraceptives attached.

 

Steven Mosher is the president of the Population Research Institute. Michael Hichborn is the president of the Lepanto Institute.