Democrats Are Becoming Ensnared in Trump and Musk’s 'Foreign Aid Trap'
Three experienced strategists are advocating for their party to adopt a more deliberate approach in countering Trump's anti-bureaucracy campaign.
TroibNews 
After three months of intense reflection on how to rejuvenate their party, some Democrats believe they have finally found a unifying cause following Donald Trump’s election victory.
Elon Musk’s initiative to systematically dismantle the federal bureaucracy at Trump’s urging, beginning with the U.S. Agency for International Development, has galvanized numerous Democratic lawmakers, several of whom demonstrated outside USAID headquarters on Monday.
However, reigniting resistance to protect one of the less favored aspects of the federal budget could prove to be a significant strategic error. Some well-known Democrats have voiced serious concerns regarding the party's approach to countering this move.
When veteran strategist David Axelrod was asked if Democrats were “walking into a trap” by defending foreign aid, he completed the thought: “My heart is with the people out on the street outside USAID, but my head tells me: ‘Man, Trump will be well satisfied to have this fight.’ When you talk about cuts, the first thing people say is: Cut foreign aid.”
Rahm Emanuel, former House leader and Chicago mayor, echoed similar sentiments: “You don't fight every fight. You don't swing at every pitch. And my view is — while I care about the USAID as a former ambassador — that's not the hill I'm going to die on,” he said.
In contrast, Trump’s circle was pleased to see Democratic lawmakers engaging in protests in Washington, interpreting it as a misuse of political resources to defend an agency they believe the public largely overlooks. Musk actively promoted videos of the protests for the next 24 hours.
“The federal bureaucracy is very unpopular… It's a pretty widely held, majority position — if you poll it, people think the government is wasting money. And, very simply, that's the battle that we're fighting,” a senior Trump administration official noted. “The Democrats are now taking the opposite position: ‘Everything's perfect.’ ‘Nothing to look at here.’ ‘No money is wasted.’ ‘All your tax dollars are being spent well.’”
Adding to this line of thought, the source remarked: “Not a very politically tenable position.”
The political implications of defending foreign aid are not only about strategy but also connect to important humanitarian and national security issues.
Dismantling USAID is already leading to dire consequences for global health and development initiatives, Axelrod pointed out, and a retreat from international engagement opens the door for adversaries to expand their influence.
Republicans have traditionally advocated for “soft power” — winning global affection through aid, supporting emerging economies, and providing vaccines to vulnerable populations. Notably, China is ready to step in to fill any gaps left by the U.S.
Some Democrats argue that a broad response is necessary given the scale of the challenge. Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz passionately communicated this sentiment shortly after the article’s release: "People empowered by the president are violating federal law in multiple ways, taking over federal payments, illegally shutting down whole departments, freezing Head Start and Medicaid, and the best these podcasters can muster is that we should wait for a more popular program to defend? Spare me."
"The emergency is now. We need to act like it," he added. "This isn’t about any particular program or the theater criticism that substitutes for strategy. This is about making sure these billionaires are not able to loot the federal government and strip it for parts."
Nevertheless, many Americans remain unaware of what USAID is or its functions. Research from the Brookings Institution reveals that a significant portion of the population mistakenly believes foreign aid accounts for 25 percent of the federal budget, while the reality is closer to 1 percent.
Moreover, Democrats may not be fully grasping the political environment: Trump's team believes that his “America First” message resonates beyond his core supporters and recognizes the presence of a considerable online conspiracy movement fixated on the agency. In essence, they do not regret targeting foreign aid, and they relish the ensuing controversy.
“My message to my Democratic friends and to the tofu-eating wokerati at USAID is, ‘I hear your question, but you need to call somebody who cares,’” Sen. John Kennedy remarked to reporters this week.
The Democrats' communication challenges extend beyond USAID. They have raised concerns about Trump and Musk dismissing inspectors general, removing FBI staff who investigated Trump, and proposing buyouts for numerous federal employees, yet only a small percentage of Americans feel a personal connection to these issues.
According to Axelrod, this dilemma highlights a broader crisis facing the Democratic Party. He wonders how the party, once regarded as the champion of working people, has come to be seen as a defender of elite institutions. “Part of the problem for the Democratic Party is that it has become a stalwart defender of institutions at a time when people are enraged at institutions,” he observed. “And they become — in the minds of a lot of voters — an elite party, and to a lot of folks who are trying to scuffle out there and get along, this will seem like an elite passion.”
Another obstacle for Democrats is the rapid pace of Trump's actions, complicating their ability to concentrate their critiques effectively. If they attempt to oppose every issue, voters might start to ignore their concerns.
While it is essential for Democrats to continue contesting Musk's initiatives, longtime strategist James Carville believes it benefits their party to challenge a billionaire who seeks to undermine government services for the public good. “I know this: When the public doesn’t have the bureaucracy, they notice it pretty quickly,” he said. “Here you have some nice people doing a good job, then some billionaire comes in and takes a wrecking ball to everything.”
However, Carville, Axelrod, and Emanuel concur that Democrats should reserve their indignation for issues that will resonate with the public: cutting benefits, rising prices, and not foreign aid.
“It’s a question of what you emphasize and how you emphasize it,” Axelrod said. “In the big conversation, where do you want to put your chips?”
Potential opportunities may arise soon, as Trump appears ready to dismantle the Department of Education, which could threaten special education programs and federally subsidized student loans.
Emanuel noted that this represents a more strategic battlefield for Democrats to engage: “A third of the eighth graders can't read ... and now he wants to close the Department of Education?” He queried. “I'm for USAID, but that makes your coastal Democrats really, really comfortable about our moral principles. I care about the kids who can't read.”
Frederick R Cook contributed to this report for TROIB News
Elon Musk’s initiative to systematically dismantle the federal bureaucracy at Trump’s urging, beginning with the U.S. Agency for International Development, has galvanized numerous Democratic lawmakers, several of whom demonstrated outside USAID headquarters on Monday.
However, reigniting resistance to protect one of the less favored aspects of the federal budget could prove to be a significant strategic error. Some well-known Democrats have voiced serious concerns regarding the party's approach to countering this move.
When veteran strategist David Axelrod was asked if Democrats were “walking into a trap” by defending foreign aid, he completed the thought: “My heart is with the people out on the street outside USAID, but my head tells me: ‘Man, Trump will be well satisfied to have this fight.’ When you talk about cuts, the first thing people say is: Cut foreign aid.”
Rahm Emanuel, former House leader and Chicago mayor, echoed similar sentiments: “You don't fight every fight. You don't swing at every pitch. And my view is — while I care about the USAID as a former ambassador — that's not the hill I'm going to die on,” he said.
In contrast, Trump’s circle was pleased to see Democratic lawmakers engaging in protests in Washington, interpreting it as a misuse of political resources to defend an agency they believe the public largely overlooks. Musk actively promoted videos of the protests for the next 24 hours.
“The federal bureaucracy is very unpopular… It's a pretty widely held, majority position — if you poll it, people think the government is wasting money. And, very simply, that's the battle that we're fighting,” a senior Trump administration official noted. “The Democrats are now taking the opposite position: ‘Everything's perfect.’ ‘Nothing to look at here.’ ‘No money is wasted.’ ‘All your tax dollars are being spent well.’”
Adding to this line of thought, the source remarked: “Not a very politically tenable position.”
The political implications of defending foreign aid are not only about strategy but also connect to important humanitarian and national security issues.
Dismantling USAID is already leading to dire consequences for global health and development initiatives, Axelrod pointed out, and a retreat from international engagement opens the door for adversaries to expand their influence.
Republicans have traditionally advocated for “soft power” — winning global affection through aid, supporting emerging economies, and providing vaccines to vulnerable populations. Notably, China is ready to step in to fill any gaps left by the U.S.
Some Democrats argue that a broad response is necessary given the scale of the challenge. Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz passionately communicated this sentiment shortly after the article’s release: "People empowered by the president are violating federal law in multiple ways, taking over federal payments, illegally shutting down whole departments, freezing Head Start and Medicaid, and the best these podcasters can muster is that we should wait for a more popular program to defend? Spare me."
"The emergency is now. We need to act like it," he added. "This isn’t about any particular program or the theater criticism that substitutes for strategy. This is about making sure these billionaires are not able to loot the federal government and strip it for parts."
Nevertheless, many Americans remain unaware of what USAID is or its functions. Research from the Brookings Institution reveals that a significant portion of the population mistakenly believes foreign aid accounts for 25 percent of the federal budget, while the reality is closer to 1 percent.
Moreover, Democrats may not be fully grasping the political environment: Trump's team believes that his “America First” message resonates beyond his core supporters and recognizes the presence of a considerable online conspiracy movement fixated on the agency. In essence, they do not regret targeting foreign aid, and they relish the ensuing controversy.
“My message to my Democratic friends and to the tofu-eating wokerati at USAID is, ‘I hear your question, but you need to call somebody who cares,’” Sen. John Kennedy remarked to reporters this week.
The Democrats' communication challenges extend beyond USAID. They have raised concerns about Trump and Musk dismissing inspectors general, removing FBI staff who investigated Trump, and proposing buyouts for numerous federal employees, yet only a small percentage of Americans feel a personal connection to these issues.
According to Axelrod, this dilemma highlights a broader crisis facing the Democratic Party. He wonders how the party, once regarded as the champion of working people, has come to be seen as a defender of elite institutions. “Part of the problem for the Democratic Party is that it has become a stalwart defender of institutions at a time when people are enraged at institutions,” he observed. “And they become — in the minds of a lot of voters — an elite party, and to a lot of folks who are trying to scuffle out there and get along, this will seem like an elite passion.”
Another obstacle for Democrats is the rapid pace of Trump's actions, complicating their ability to concentrate their critiques effectively. If they attempt to oppose every issue, voters might start to ignore their concerns.
While it is essential for Democrats to continue contesting Musk's initiatives, longtime strategist James Carville believes it benefits their party to challenge a billionaire who seeks to undermine government services for the public good. “I know this: When the public doesn’t have the bureaucracy, they notice it pretty quickly,” he said. “Here you have some nice people doing a good job, then some billionaire comes in and takes a wrecking ball to everything.”
However, Carville, Axelrod, and Emanuel concur that Democrats should reserve their indignation for issues that will resonate with the public: cutting benefits, rising prices, and not foreign aid.
“It’s a question of what you emphasize and how you emphasize it,” Axelrod said. “In the big conversation, where do you want to put your chips?”
Potential opportunities may arise soon, as Trump appears ready to dismantle the Department of Education, which could threaten special education programs and federally subsidized student loans.
Emanuel noted that this represents a more strategic battlefield for Democrats to engage: “A third of the eighth graders can't read ... and now he wants to close the Department of Education?” He queried. “I'm for USAID, but that makes your coastal Democrats really, really comfortable about our moral principles. I care about the kids who can't read.”
Frederick R Cook contributed to this report for TROIB News
