When U.S. Congressman Scott Perry recently alleged that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been funding Boko Haram to the tune of $697 million annually, the claim sent shockwaves through the international development circles in both countries. The idea that U.S. taxpayer dollars could be fueling one of the world’s deadliest terrorist organizations was a chilling accusation—one that, if true, would be nothing short of a global scandal. Perry claims that U.S. money is funding madrasas, terrorist training camps, and extremist groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria.
“Who gets some of that money? Does that name ring a bell to anybody in the room? Because your money—$697 million annually—plus shipments of cash funds in Madrasas, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorasan, terrorist training camps. That’s what it’s funding,” Perry stated.
He declares that “you are paying for terrorism” through misallocated USAID funds.
But Perry’s claim is more than just an incendiary statement—it is a serious charge that demands scrutiny. At stake is not only the credibility of U.S. foreign assistance but also the lives of millions of Nigerians who depend on American aid programs for survival.
Prominent human rights lawyer Emmanuel Ogebe, an expert on Nigerian terrorism who was instrumental in lobbying for Boko Haram’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in 2013, has emerged as a leading voice against these allegations. He has unequivocally denounced Perry’s claims as “blatantly false,” arguing that they are not only misleading but also dangerous, threatening to undermine vital humanitarian efforts in Nigeria’s most vulnerable regions.
So, what is the truth? Is USAID unknowingly propping up terrorists, or are these claims another example of political grandstanding? A closer examination of the facts reveals a far more complex and nuanced reality.
The Origins of the Controversy: USAID Funding Terrorism
Perry’s accusations stem from the widespread belief that U.S. foreign aid often lacks proper oversight, leading to corruption, inefficiency, and, in the worst cases, diversion into unintended hands. While mismanagement and bureaucratic failures are legitimate concerns, the idea that USAID is directly funding Boko Haram is a significant leap that lacks evidence.
Boko Haram, an Islamist militant group whose name translates loosely to “Western education is forbidden,” has waged a brutal insurgency in Nigeria for over a decade. Known for mass kidnappings, village massacres, and terrorist bombings, the group has forced over two million Nigerians from their homes and destabilized much of the country’s northeast.
Yet terrorist financing experts agree that Boko Haram’s primary sources of funding do not come from foreign aid organizations like USAID. Instead, the group relies on kidnappings for ransom, illegal trade, smuggling operations, and extortion of local populations. Intelligence reports also suggest that jihadist networks from North Africa and the Middle East provide external financial backing.
Unlike groups such as ISIS, which built a sophisticated financial empire, Boko Haram operates through localized criminal enterprises, making it unlikely that it would depend on a U.S. agency that operates under extensive security and financial regulations.
The Reality of USAID’s Presence in Nigeria
USAID has been operating in Nigeria for decades, with a mission to improve health outcomes, promote economic stability, support democratic governance, and provide humanitarian relief. In Boko Haram-affected areas, the agency’s programs focus largely on assisting internally displaced persons (IDPs), providing emergency food aid, improving healthcare access, and countering violent extremism through education and peacebuilding efforts.
Administering aid in conflict zones always comes with risks. There have been documented cases in which humanitarian aid has been diverted, stolen, or manipulated by insurgent groups. This is not unique to Nigeria—terrorist organizations in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Syria have all exploited relief efforts at various points.
But does this mean USAID is knowingly or negligently funding Boko Haram? The evidence suggests otherwise. USAID implements strict safeguards to prevent its funds from reaching terrorist groups. These include rigorous vetting of partner organizations, on-the-ground monitoring by independent third parties, and regular financial audits. The agency also complies with the Leahy Law, which prohibits U.S. foreign assistance from going to foreign military or security forces implicated in human rights violations.
Despite these controls, aid diversion is a possibility in any conflict zone. However, equating occasional lapses in oversight with systematic support for terrorism is both inaccurate and reckless.
“Perry’s Claim is Baseless” – An Expert Rebuttal
Emmanuel Ogebe, a leading human rights lawyer who has worked extensively on exposing Boko Haram’s networks, has forcefully pushed back against Perry’s claims. Ogebe has testified before the U.S. Congress, worked with American lawmakers on fact-finding missions to Nigeria, and conducted independent investigations into terrorist financing and arms smuggling.
His conclusion? Perry’s claim is baseless.
Ogebe argues that if USAID were funding Boko Haram, he—along with other counterterrorism experts—would have exposed it long ago. Instead, his concerns about USAID have more to do with bureaucratic inefficiencies and questionable spending priorities, such as allocating millions of dollars for malaria prevention while hospitals in conflict zones remain grossly underfunded.
To him, the real problem isn’t that USAID is bankrolling terrorism, but rather that some of its funding strategies lack effectiveness in addressing Nigeria’s most pressing security and humanitarian challenges.
The Political Context: Trump, USAID, and the DOGE Investigation
Perry’s accusations come at a time when U.S. foreign aid is facing renewed scrutiny under the Trump administration. President Donald Trump has long criticized foreign assistance, arguing that it wastes taxpayer money and fails to advance U.S. interests. Recently, Trump’s administration created the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to review federal programs, including USAID. DOGE has a mandate to examine government inefficiencies across multiple departments.
Despite this, the heightened political rhetoric around USAID has amplified suspicions and fueled conspiracy theories, with Perry’s allegations fitting neatly into a larger narrative of skepticism toward U.S. foreign assistance.
The Real Question: Is USAID Funding & Aid Initiatives Effective?
While Perry’s claim about USAID funding Boko Haram is unfounded, the larger conversation about foreign aid efficiency remains relevant. USAID has long been criticized for excessive bureaucracy, slow response times, and misplaced priorities.
For instance, Ogebe has pointed out that millions of dollars were spent on mosquito nets in a conflict zone where immediate trauma care and security interventions were far more urgent. There is also a well-documented disconnect between what aid organizations prioritize and what local communities actually need.
But these criticisms do not justify cutting aid altogether. If anything, they call for better oversight, smarter funding allocations, and more direct engagement with Nigerian civil society to ensure that aid reaches those who need it most.
Separating Fact from Fiction: The Truth Behind Foreign Aid Allegations
There have been claims that international non-governmental organizations were surreptitiously collaborating with terrorists in Nigeria, but USAID was never explicitly mentioned. According to the Nigerian Newspaper Arise News former Director, Department of State Service (DSS) in Nigeria, Mike Ejiofor, reacting to Perry’s troubling disclosure, said “this was not a surprise as the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), had in the past also alleged that international non-governmental organizations were surreptitiously collaborating with terrorists in Nigeria”. Alleging that most foreign governmental and non-governmental agencies were mostly fronts. He called on the Nigerian National Assembly and the security agencies to investigate the claim.
In a “Talk to Al Jazeera” interview, Nigeria’s Defence Chief, General Christopher Musa, implied that some international organizations may have ulterior motives in their reports on the Nigerian military’s actions against insurgents. While he did not explicitly state that NGOs were collaborating with terrorists, he implied suspicion about the timing and motivations of some international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), suggesting that their reports may aim to demoralize the Nigerian military rather than provide unbiased assessments.
The claim that USAID is knowingly or negligently funding Boko Haram does not hold up under scrutiny. While it is true that some aid may be diverted or misused in conflict zones, Perry’s $697 million claim lacks any verifiable evidence.
However, this controversy does reveal real challenges in U.S. foreign assistance. USAID must strengthen oversight mechanisms, improve transparency, and prioritize interventions that directly support victims of terrorism rather than relying on broad peacebuilding initiatives with uncertain impact.
At the same time, reckless accusations like Perry’s risk doing more harm than good. Misinformation about foreign aid can lead to cuts in funding that ultimately harm the very people these programs are meant to help. If U.S. assistance were to be withdrawn based on false claims, millions of displaced Nigerians could face even greater suffering, and Boko Haram would only benefit from the resulting power vacuum.
The debate over foreign aid is important, but it must be based on facts, not fear-mongering. Instead of spreading unverified accusations, the focus should be on ensuring that every dollar of U.S. aid is used effectively, transparently, and in a way that truly supports Nigeria’s fight against terrorism.
Anything less is a disservice to both American taxpayers and the countless Nigerians whose lives hang in the balance.
