In a controversial shift in U.S. foreign aid distribution, the Trump administration’s dismantling of USAID in early 2025 has paved the way for significant funding increases for certain evangelical organizations, particularly Samaritan’s Purse, led by Franklin Graham.

Franklin Graham, the son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham and head of the prominent Christian aid organization Samaritan’s Purse, publicly endorsed the dismantling of USAID. He echoed the criticisms of Elon Musk, who pointed to alleged waste and fraud within the agency.

Graham expressed confidence in Trump’s administration, believing they would make beneficial decisions, a sentiment echoed by reports which suggest his organization was swiftly exempted from the initial freeze on aid funds.

Fast forward a year and a half, and Samaritan’s Purse has emerged as a major beneficiary of a new $2 billion aid initiative that favors evangelical groups. The organization is now set to receive $300 million over two years — nearly double its previous annual funding levels.

The newly designed funding program has controversially cut off financial support to non-Christian aid organizations. This affects groups that have often criticized Trump’s policies, such as Church World Service and Lutheran World Relief, both of which had previously received substantial federal aid.

Church World Service and Lutheran World Relief, which had previously secured between $114 million and $250 million annually, were notably excluded from the new funding landscape.

Other organizations, like the American Jewish World Service, report they were not consulted about the implementation of the aid changes, despite the program’s stated ecumenical goals. Catholic Relief Services continues to receive funding, likely due to its historical prominence among faith-based aid groups.

The systemic changes have raised alarms about oversight in the new aid distribution process. The previous USAID model, which utilized competitive bidding and independent monitoring, has been replaced by a setup managed by a small office within the State Department lacking a dedicated inspector general.

This alteration in governance makes the distribution of aid more susceptible to political influences, raising concerns among watchdog groups and experts alike.

As funding flows to Samaritan’s Purse increase, scrutiny over the organization has intensified. Financial accountability watchdog MinistryWatch has expressed concerns, placing a “withhold giving” rating on the charity due to its departure from an evangelical financial accountability group.

Reports have also highlighted that Samaritan’s Purse holds around $750 million in unused reserves, alongside Graham’s near $1 million salary — prompting further questions about financial transparency.

Holly Berkley Fletcher from The Bulwark pointed out the troubling implications of the current aid system. She described it as a “religiously motivated, insufficiently transparent regime,” suggesting it could compromise the integrity of evangelical leaders who might otherwise critique Trump’s policies.

The overlap between evangelical organizations and Trump’s core political base raises questions about their independence and credibility. These groups provide not only resources but also a sense of moral endorsement for the administration’s policies.

Furthermore, the evolution of the aid system under the Trump administration appears to be part of a broader strategy to align evangelical support with governmental objectives. This dynamic could complicate the roles of nonprofits that typically position themselves as critical observers of power.

As the new aid strategies unfold, the relationship between government and faith-based organizations will likely face heightened scrutiny. Advocacy groups are gearing up to challenge the implications of these funding decisions.

With major funding now contingent on political alignment, the future of U.S. foreign aid could see further shifts that could fundamentally change who receives support and under what circumstances.

As this story continues to develop, the implications of these funding changes for humanitarian efforts and the broader political landscape remain significant and fraught with controversy.