The $520 million contract to a Bethesda, Maryland, development company was part of the president’s Prosper Africa initiative launched in 2019.
Analysis by Glenn Kessler
“Here are some of the flagrant scams that, as an example, they’ve spent money on … $520 million for a consultant … you know, when I hired consultants, and they just take advantage of you, it’s a horrible thing to watch. I give them $25,000. I feel I’m overpaying. These guys got $520 million [for] environmental, social governance and investments in Africa.”
— President Donald Trump, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Feb. 22
“$520 million was given for a consultant to do ESG. That’s environmental, social and governance investments in Africa, $520 million.”
— Trump, remarks to governors at the White House, Feb. 21
“Here are just some of the things that we’ve paid, and we’ve stopped, and we’ve gotten the money back: $520 million for a consultant to do ESG, that’s environmental, social and governance investments in Africa.”
— Trump, remarks at a dinner for Republican governors, Feb. 20
“$520 million for a consultant — I want to know who is that consultant — [Laughter] — to do ESG — that’s environmental, social and governance — investments in Africa.”
— Trump, remarks at Future Investment Initiative Priority Conference, Miami Beach, Feb. 19
“$520 million for a consultant on the environment. It’s called environmental, social and governance investments in Africa and mobilize private sector resources, $520 million. Somebody got $520 million for an environmental — sounds like an environmental study. I’ve always been one that paid a lot of money for my environmental studies, but I’d pay like $50,000, not $520 million. $520 million for ESG.”
— Trump, remarks while signing executive orders at Mar-a-Lago, Feb. 18
Almost daily lately, President Donald Trump complains about what he claims is an egregious contract that the U.S. Agency for International Development gave to “a consultant” for work in Africa — $520 million for what he calls “environmental, social and governance.” Sometimes he might mention investments, but not always. And sometimes he riffs about the outrageous fee this consultant received, compared with the $25,000 or $50,000 in fees he would dole out to consultants when he was in business. Once, he described it as “an environmental study.”
We’ve debunked many claims the White House has made about USAID funding, from condoms for Gaza (
not true) to a transgender opera in Colombia (
also not true). But this is an especially glaring error — the money was directed toward supporting
a program launched in the first Trump presidency.
The Facts
First of all, while Trump suggests that the $520 million contract has been terminated and “we’ve gotten the money back,” not even the website for the U.S. DOGE Service — the organization overseen by billionaire Elon Musk to carry out government firings and spending cuts — makes this claim. While the DOGE website lists a $520 million contract with DAI Global, it pegs the value recovered as about $159 million. Meanwhile, the USA Spending website says DAI Global has received $128 million in outlays and $361 million has been obligated.
In other words, much of the contract has already been awarded, so Trump can’t brag about getting back $520 million.
The contract is with DAI Global, a global development company founded in 1970 with 350 people at its headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, plus staff at a dozen offices around the world. According to its website, DAI implements “programs funded by international donors, national governments, private corporations, or major philanthropies.” (DAI declined to comment.)
A White House official defended the president’s use of the phrase “a consultant” because DAI, among its many services, provides social sector and nonprofit consulting. But that’s just a small part of its business.
As for the $520 million contract, it established something called the Prosper Africa Trade and Investment Activity. “The purpose of this Activity is to mobilize enterprise-driven solutions that increase trade and investment in Africa, including North and sub-Saharan Africa,” the contract language said. “It will strengthen Africa’s markets by developing new trade and investment relationships, particularly between the U.S. and Africa.”
Prosper Africa, ironically, was launched in 2019, during Trump’s first term.
“Prosper Africa is a Trump Administration initiative intended to foster U.S.-African trade and commercial ties,” according to the Congressional Research Service. “The initiative seeks to double U.S.-Africa trade, spur U.S. and African economic growth, and — as U.S. officials have stated — ‘demonstrate the superior value proposition of transparent markets and private enterprise for driving growth.’” The idea was to harmonize the existing programs of 16 U.S. agencies and departments in a cohesive, coordinated manner to promote sales and investment by American companies — as a way to counter China’s growing influence in Africa.
“The President is criticizing the contract, not necessarily Prosper Africa,” the White House official said.
So how does a program designed to bolster a first-term Trump initiative get twisted into something negative (ESG!) and worthy of termination? Through some creative cherry-picking.
The White House official noted that DAI, on its website, uses words such as “social” and “governance.” For instance, “We tackle fundamental social and economic development problems caused by inefficient markets, ineffective governance, and instability. … We are committed to shaping a more livable world.”
None of that, of course, is part of the contract, which is focused on investment.
The official also pointed to a DAI blog post that mentioned that “inadequate access to reliable electricity remains a critical constraint to the social and economic growth prospects of 580 million people in Africa,” providing an investment opportunity for U.S. businesses, particularly exports of U.S. clean technologies. The project would “increase U.S. clean energy exports to Africa and close at least $350 million worth of cleantech energy deals by 2026,” the blog post said.
As far as we could tell, clean energy is only a piece of the Prosper Africa Trade and Investment Activity — and, in any case, the goal was to boost American business.
We should note that earlier this month, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast (R-Florida) described the contract as “$520 million to pay consultants to teach people in Africa about climate change” — which is also wrong. His staff did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
The Pinocchio Test
Trump’s claim is based on a series of misunderstandings.
$520 million is not being saved.
The contract is not with a consultant, but a company that, among its many services, offers some consulting.
The contract was to promote investment and American business, under a program started by Trump.
Social and governance activities are not in the contract, though (horror!) it would promote sales of U.S. clean energy exports.
Trump earns Four Pinocchios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
