VERDICT: MISLEADING
DOGE's viral claim about "spending on condoms in Gaza" misrepresented standard USAID global health programming. The spending was part of long-standing family planning programs that operate in over 40 countries - not a Gaza-specific initiative. The claim was designed to generate outrage by stripping essential context from routine public health expenditures that have bipartisan support.
In early 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) posted about federal spending on "condoms in Gaza" as an example of wasteful spending. The post went viral, generating millions of views and widespread outrage. However, the claim stripped critical context: the spending was part of USAID's global family planning program that has operated for decades, serves over 40 countries, and has consistent bipartisan congressional support. The framing suggested a bizarre Gaza-specific program when in reality, Gaza was simply one of many regions where standard reproductive health supplies were distributed.
The Claim
DOGE highlighted a line item suggesting federal funds were spent on "condoms for Gaza," presenting it as an example of wasteful government spending. The post implied this was a questionable or absurd use of taxpayer money. [1]
The claim quickly spread across social media, with many users expressing outrage about the supposed misuse of federal funds during a time of conflict. [7]
The Full Context
What DOGE didn't explain: [2]
- Part of a global program: USAID's family planning program operates in 40+ countries and has for decades
- Bipartisan support: Congress has consistently funded these programs under both parties
- Standard public health: Contraceptives are basic healthcare commodities, not unusual spending
- Humanitarian context: Reproductive health supplies are standard in crisis response
USAID family planning programs include contraceptives, maternal health supplies, training for healthcare workers, and education programs. These are evidence-based interventions that reduce maternal mortality, prevent unintended pregnancies, and improve child health outcomes globally. [6]
The Numbers in Context
The total USAID family planning budget for FY2024 was approximately $607 million globally - about 1% of total foreign assistance. [11]
| Program | Annual Budget | % of Foreign Aid |
|---|---|---|
| Total US Foreign Assistance | $60+ billion | 100% |
| USAID Global Health | $10.5 billion | ~17% |
| Family Planning (Global) | $607 million | ~1% |
| West Bank/Gaza Health (total) | ~$150 million | ~0.25% |
Why This Framing Was Misleading
The DOGE claim was misleading for several reasons: [3]
- Selective presentation: Isolated one line item from a comprehensive program
- Missing context: Didn't explain this is standard global health spending
- Manufactured outrage: Used inflammatory framing ("Gaza condoms") to generate clicks
- False implication: Suggested this was unusual when it's routine
Expert Response
Public health experts and foreign policy analysts criticized the framing: [12]
- Kaiser Family Foundation: "Family planning programs are among the most cost-effective global health interventions"
- Congressional Research Service: "These programs have had consistent bipartisan support for decades"
- GAO: Previous audits found USAID family planning programs to be well-managed and effective
Pattern of Misleading Claims
This claim followed a pattern of DOGE posts that isolated individual spending items without context, including: [10]
- Scientific research grants presented without explaining their purpose
- Foreign aid items without contextualizing their role in broader programs
- Government spending on conferences without noting their official purposes
This approach allows ordinary government spending to be reframed as scandalous through selective presentation. [9]
DOGE's "Gaza condom" claim is MISLEADING. While the underlying spending is real, the presentation stripped away essential context. The spending was part of standard, congressionally-authorized global health programs that have operated for decades with bipartisan support. The framing manufactured outrage by presenting routine public health spending as if it were scandalous or unusual. This is a textbook example of misleading through decontextualization.