White House Rebuts Actor Richard Gere's Critique of USAID Shutdown

When Richard Gere, the 76‑year‑old Hollywood veteran, took a quick detour from promoting the second season of his Paramount+ series “The Agency,” he didn’t shy away from politics. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, the Oscar‑winner called the U.S. Agency for International Development “the purest thing America has done” and declared he was “ashamed” that President Trump had shut it down on day one of his return.

Gere’s remarks hit a nerve in the West Wing. Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, fired back on the administration’s official X account, basically saying the actor’s take was off‑base – but he didn’t dive into the nitty‑gritty of USAID’s track record.

The administration has been busy painting USAID as a conduit for wasteful, “left‑wing” projects. It’s pointed to grants for LGBTQ rights, diversity programs in places like Guatemala and Serbia, and even a handful of initiatives in Iraq, Jamaica and Uganda, branding the agency a “slush fund” for progressive causes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials have echoed that sentiment, suggesting the budget was better spent elsewhere.

Gere, meanwhile, used his platform to champion the agency’s contributions to global health, disaster relief and, in his words, “the very idea that America can be a force for good.” He also linked his criticism to broader concerns about immigration policy and the war in Gaza, topics he’s been vocal about on his press tour.

White House officials, for their part, have stuck to the narrative that the cuts are about eliminating inefficiency and refocusing America’s resources. They argue that USAID’s projects often overlap with private‑sector efforts and that the agency has become a “political playground.” The response on X was short, brushing aside Gere’s emotional appeal without directly contesting his facts.

It’s a classic clash of Hollywood activism meeting the gritty reality of Washington politics. Whether Gere’s comments will shift public opinion—or simply add another footnote to the ongoing debate over America’s role abroad—remains to be seen.