Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration’s approach to foreign aid, arguing that the previous USAID system often operated independently of broader U.S. foreign policy goals and, in some cases, worked against the objectives of American embassies overseas.

Rubio made the remarks while responding to criticism that the administration has reduced spending tied to certain USAID programs.

He said many of the complaints stem from a misunderstanding of how the agency functioned and why changes were made.

“Goes right to the criticisms that I keep hearing from that side over there about us not spending the money because we got rid of a USAID program,” Rubio said.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

According to Rubio, USAID evolved into a system that frequently acted without sufficient coordination with American diplomatic efforts in the countries where it operated.

“USAID basically was a program that was a system that was completely devoid of our public policy, operated almost as an independent State Department, and often times USAID was operating in contravention and contradiction of what the embassy was trying to accomplish in the host country,” Rubio said.

Rubio said one of the recurring concerns raised by leaders in developing nations involved the large number of nongovernmental organizations operating within their borders.

He argued that many of those groups were selected without meaningful input from host governments.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

“And one of the complaints you would get from many developing countries is that they would get flooded with NGOs that were picked for them,” Rubio said.

Rubio said those organizations frequently conducted activities without coordinating with local governments and often pursued their own agendas.

“These NGOs would then operate in the country without even coordinating with the government, doing whatever they wanted and pursuing what they wanted,” Rubio said.

He argued that the problem sometimes extended beyond traditional humanitarian efforts.

“And in some cases it extended well beyond food and medicine, it extended to political interference and all sorts of other activities in these countries that were undermining the national interest and the credibility of the United States,” Rubio said.

Rubio contrasted that model with what he described as a new government-to-government approach to foreign assistance.

Under the revised framework, aid agreements are negotiated directly with individual countries rather than being routed through broader international programs.

“Now, these compacts, in particular, are promising and exciting because they are government-to-government arrangements,” Rubio said.

Rubio said the new approach allows aid to be tailored to the specific needs of each nation rather than being distributed through standardized global programs.

“No longer do we put money into a bucket and say this is for vaccines or this is for medical care or this is for standing up clinics globally. We are doing it individually, country by country,” Rubio said.

He argued that a country-specific strategy is more effective because nations face different challenges and priorities.

“And the reason why that makes sense is because every country has unique needs. Some country may need more help in some area than in others,” Rubio said.

Rubio said the long-term goal is to help countries build sustainable healthcare systems that eventually reduce their dependence on foreign assistance.

“But at the core of this arrangement that we're making with countries is their desire and our goal to ultimately help them build their own national health systems, so that eventually they no longer are dependent on foreign aid,” Rubio said.

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.