The unexpected dismantling of the US International Development Agency has led to a wave of uncertainty regarding international aid and humanitarian efforts. However, it also presents a unique chance to explore new strategies and ideas going forward.
On a positive note, there are already numerous initiatives aimed at “reforming foreign aid,” though it’s crucial to understand that what is truly needed goes beyond previous attempts at reform.
“Reform” implies temporary projects, whereas what we need is a comprehensive framework that evolves as the world does. “Support” often means providing funds only when there’s plenty to share. The creativity and resourcefulness in America are unparalleled, so we should leverage the flow of ideas and information while breaking down barriers for private investment.
If you’re focused on the necessary tools, don’t get sidetracked by bureaucratic jargon or charts. Previous reform efforts have been mired in disputes about organizational titles and placements, whereas we should be pursuing a strategic approach with a clear vision for addressing global needs.
During the first Trump administration, we proclaimed that the aim of foreign aid should ultimately be to eradicate the need for it. When engaging with leaders in various countries, we walked alongside them on their journey toward independence. There was a shared vision: to transition from being merely aid recipients to becoming partners who equally contribute to donor efforts. Every leader I encountered seemed open to that goal.
To realize that vision, we need to craft a new approach centered around the idea that private enterprises are among the strongest forces for community development. This doesn’t mean just outsourcing government initiatives to businesses; it involves creating contracts. We’ve been doing this for years.
What we essentially need is cooperation among staff with diverse objectives, but we should turn to entrepreneurs for fresh insights on how to achieve these goals. This entails looking for ways to improve business supply chains, distribution avenues, and market strategies while promoting innovation in an economically beneficial manner.
Moreover, we shouldn’t forget the importance of maintaining a strong international presence. During the first Trump term, I often reminded my USAID colleagues that development doesn’t occur in bureaucratic buildings in Washington, DC, or anywhere else in the United States; true progress happens in communities abroad.
A robust overseas presence can drive American business opportunities globally. This is a lesson China has already absorbed: Beijing now has more diplomatic outposts than the US, particularly in Africa. Each of these posts acts as a foothold for China to uncover economic prospects, advance its interests, and forge strategic alliances.
Lastly, rethinking how we exercise American soft power is essential. As Kristalina Georgieva of the IMF observed, the current climate is increasingly volatile. This reality applies not just to macroeconomic trends but to development challenges as well.
American leadership has historically contributed to making the world a better place. While not every aspect of our foreign aid program is perfect—some initiatives may not yield the results we hoped for—what we’ve achieved in projects like Pepfar has been remarkable. Saving 37 million lives since 2003 and facilitating over 1,100 trade agreements in four years isn’t just significant; it represents a strategic investment.
Initiatives such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and Pepfar have fundamentally transformed how critical development and humanitarian challenges are approached. This moment is undeniably bold, it has the potential to accelerate progress, fulfill American humanitarian and strategic interests, and necessitates innovative approaches.
