Vice President J.D. Vance’s startling claim that only 12 cents of every humanitarian dollar reaches intended recipients forces a hard look at how U.S. foreign aid is routed, who profits along the way, and how much of that process happens inside Washington rather than overseas.
For years critics have warned that foreign aid can enrich local elites abroad, but Vance’s comments shift the focus onto domestic middlemen and federal waste. He described a system where money meant for medicine and food is passed through layers of contractors, subcontractors, and NGOs, with each step taking a cut. That accusation points to a problem that is both ideological and administrative: policy failing the people it aims to help and bureaucrats profiting from inefficiency.
Vance recounted a concrete example from early in the administration when a payment had to be halted because nobody could trace where the money was being wired. That anecdote matters because it suggests the issue is not just sloppy accounting but a structural lack of transparency. If the White House staff cannot determine a payment’s destination, taxpayers have no reliable assurance their aid is reaching legitimate recipients.
Appearing on a podcast with comedian Theo Von, Vice President J.D. Vance revealed that White House estimates show just 12 cents of every dollar spent on U.S. humanitarian aid actually reaches its intended recipients.
“One of the crazy things we all figured out, like the first week or so we were in the White House, is there was a payment that should be stopped, because the president signed an executive order to stop a payment. And this is like day one in the White House,” Vance said. “We were like, how do we stop this payment. Because somebody is trying to make this payment, and nobody knew where, like the computer was that actually wired the money from the U.S. taxpayer to this entity.”
“God…” Theo Von replied.
“The amount of waste and the amount of just grift in the federal government was off the charts. It’s getting better, but there is still a lot more I think we can find.”
He used the phrase “just grift in the federal government,” explicitly pointing to domestic waste rather than blaming only corrupt foreign regimes. That distinction is important for conservatives committed to both strong foreign policy and fiscal responsibility. It reframes the debate: the enemy of effective aid is not solely foreign corruption but also an American system that allows money to be dispersed with weak oversight.
Vance painted a picture many voters will recognize: a generous headline figure is advertised, but the path from Washington to a family in need is obstructed by bureaucracy and profit-seeking intermediaries. When a $100,000 allocation intended to buy food ends up split among several layers of contractors before any purchase is made, the result is predictable. Funds evaporate in transaction fees, markups, and administrative overhead instead of arriving as food or medicine.
Non-governmental organizations play a mixed role in this ecosystem. Some NGOs deliver crucial services efficiently and transparently, while others operate more like pass-through entities that add expense without commensurate results. The presence of multiple subcontractors often means local partners with limited accountability receive taxpayer-funded contracts, and monitoring becomes expensive and incomplete.
“I mean, a lot of people were slurping, man,” Vance continued. “You look at…So, for example, there are all these humanitarian programs that we have, where we send money for medicine, for food, okay? What I thought before I got in the government, what most Americans think is okay, so we send $100,000 to this group to buy food for like poor kids in Africa. Okay? And what actually happens is it’s not $100,000 that go to the food for poor kids in Africa. The NGO, the non-government organization that gets that money, contracts it out to somebody else. Then they subcontract it out. There’s like three or four middlemen.”
That blunt description should prompt policymakers to demand measurable outcomes and rigorous audits for every dollar sent overseas. Conservatives who support targeted international assistance must insist on mechanisms that tie funding to verifiable delivery of goods and services. Without that, political support for aid will evaporate as taxpayers learn more about how funds are actually used.
Reforming this landscape requires tougher contracting rules, real-time transparency, and penalties for fraud, not just rhetoric. It also calls for prioritizing direct delivery channels where feasible, partnering with reliable local actors who can be audited, and shrinking the number of intermediaries that dilute impact. These are conservative principles: accountability, efficiency, and stewardship of taxpayer money.
Public frustration with wasteful spending is bipartisan in sentiment, even if solutions differ across the aisle. From a conservative perspective, the right approach protects American generosity by ensuring aid actually helps people rather than funding an industry that profits from complexity. That reorientation protects both recipients abroad and taxpayers at home.
Vance’s claim may be disputed on the margins, but the underlying problem of layered spending and weak oversight is well documented across multiple administrations. Ending the culture that allows “grift” to flourish in the aid chain means empowering those who demand proof of delivery and cutting incentives for needless middlemen. The goal should be aid that is lean, transparent, and accountable every step of the way.
Add comment