On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14169, pronouncing a 90-day suspension on all U.S. foreign aid. Citing concerns that the U.S. aid industry is “not aligned with American interests,” the order called for a comprehensive review of all foreign assistance programs.
As the U.S. government’s primary provider of aid abroad, the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, quickly fell victim to the new administration’s efforts to purge the bureaucracy of programmatic inefficiencies. On Jan. 24, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a “stop-work” directive, effectively ceasing all USAID operations, according to Reuters. By Feb. 2, the Associated Press reported that USAID’s website was offline.
Time Magazine reports that since then, the Trump administration has closed the agency’s headquarters, terminated over 90% of its global development contracts and dismissed or placed on administrative leave over 5,600 staffers. Any lingering remnants of the agency, which has long garnered bipartisan support, are set to be integrated into the Department of State, according to CBS News.
Since its establishment in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, USAID has coordinated the disbursement of U.S. foreign aid to communities worldwide. Over the past six decades, USAID has become the world’s largest single aid provider, funding and overseeing a variety of projects related to global health, food security, education, economic development, gender equality and disaster relief (to name a few) in about 120 countries.
While President Trump has granted a small exception for the continued operation of lifesaving assistance, the dismantling of USAID poses serious threats to humanitarian efforts worldwide. Already, the Trump administration’s failure to consider the impacts of a sudden withdrawal of development efforts has left communities to face an unanticipated lack of access to life-sustaining food, water and medical care. If the agency dies, it is fair to predict that many innocent people will follow.
President Trump has also selected an obscenely ill-suited envoy to serve as the face of this arguably unconstitutional shutdown. Businessman turned political figure, Elon Musk, who was appointed by President Trump to rid the federal government of inefficiencies, is spearheading the administration’s campaign against the agency. “USAID is a criminal organization. It needs to die,” Musk posted on X.
The irony here is hard to miss: the world’s wealthiest individual, with a net worth that Forbes estimates to be around $348 billion, is calling for the eradication of an organization dedicated to alleviating the effects of poverty.
As a nation that has long benefited from legacies of colonization and unchecked industrialization, I believe the U.S. possesses a moral obligation to utilize its resources to support those who have been historically disadvantaged. The United States acquired much of the wealth, prosperity and economic stability that it currently enjoys at the expense of the global south. While the injustices of the past can never be fully rectified, a thoughtful acknowledgement of this history demands action that advances global justice. With ample financial means at its disposal, the U.S. has both the opportunity and responsibility to invest in the distribution of fundamental resources, the expansion of economic opportunity and the empowerment of communities that have long been marginalized. To reject this commitment is not only a failure in moral leadership but also an affront to human dignity.
Even without appeals to ethical duty, it cannot be denied that the cessation of all U.S. development work poses a significant threat to national security.
Most pressing is the elimination of the soft power role that U.S. development programs play in offsetting the encroaching reach of China and Russia. Amidst a charged global competition for diplomatic and economic influence, a total eradication of US foreign aid support feels deeply ill-considered. It seems only natural that a US retreat in foreign aid would succeed only in providing opportunities for an adversarial nation to enthusiastically fill the gaps, a development that would inevitably result in political disadvantages for the United States.
USAID’s efforts are also central in mitigating the expansion of terrorism, a threat that persists across the African continent, the Middle East and parts of Asia. Unarguably, programs that combat poverty and cultivate conditions for justice strike at the roots from which terrorism flourishes. The end of USAID programs that address these root causes succeed only in making the ground more fertile for the seeds of extremism. The U.S. also has a vested interest in preventing the spread of infectious disease, an effort that USAID actively progressed through its expansive network of public health initiatives, including, but not limited to, vaccine distribution, HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, malaria interventions, maternal care and child health services, and nutrition education programming – now all left in limbo.
Not only does USAID advance U.S. strategic interests, but it also does so relatively cheaply. In 2023, USAID oversaw about $43 billion in total appropriations, according to the Congressional Research Service, a total that amounts to less than 1% of the federal budget. Compare this to the $816.7 billion allocated to defense spending in the same year, and the cost-effective nature of foreign assistance efforts becomes abundantly clear.
While USAID is an inexpensive, profoundly influential means of both engaging compassionately with our global community and protecting U.S. strategic interests, it is far from a perfect institution. The foreign aid model is certainly not without its flaws, and some have even raised concerns that international development efforts may unintentionally reinforce colonial power dynamics. However, the presence of imperfections does not justify the outright destruction of a long-respected government agency. Rather than recklessly abandoning long-withstanding overseas partnerships and deserting frontline responders through an abrupt elimination of all development efforts, the administration should focus on reforming them.
While the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s plan to freeze foreign aid on Wednesday, it was not clear how quickly money might start flowing again, according to the Associated Press. The future of USAID remains ambiguous, but one can hope that the upcoming weeks witness an administrative shift toward compassion and shared humanity and away from myopic, ideologically informed efforts to self-optimize. If not, the U.S. may face heightened insecurity, eroding global stability, the unintentional rise of its foes and the challenge of confronting cascading global crises and human deprivation prompted by its own hands.
