Rajiv Shah, who previously led the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under President Obama, recently noted in a New York Times article that reductions in foreign aid have led to increased economic opportunities internationally.
Shah mentioned that the conventional foreign aid system he once oversaw often promoted dependency and inefficiency. He pointed out that President Donald Trump’s decision to cut foreign aid funding inadvertently opened the door to a more sustainable, locally-driven economic future.
Conservative voices have long argued that ongoing handouts from the U.S. government, which are funded by taxpayers, encourage detrimental incentives, support corrupt regimes, and stifle the economic independence of recipient nations. In 2025, under Trump’s administration, USAID was dismantled through a series of executive orders, funding halts, and program cancellations, ultimately leading to the closure of most of its initiatives. Initially, the agency had over 6,000 active programs worth around $120 billion.
Actions taken by President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) resulted in an 83 percent reduction in active USAID programs.
Immediately, the left reacted by publishing claims that if Trump’s cuts to foreign aid persist through 2030, 14 million individuals who would have relied on U.S. aid may face death. Shah echoed these concerns in his New York Times piece, suggesting that Trump’s dismantling of these agencies might actually empower countries to become self-reliant.
A notable remark was made by the President of Zambia, who expressed that the USAID cuts were beneficial.
Shah further argued that private investment would fill the gap left by U.S. funding. However, it seems he might not fully grasp that Trump has a strategy to address the funding void left by USAID.
Many Americans, particularly conservatives, question the wisdom of taxpayer money going to corrupt nations that often oppose U.S. interests. Nevertheless, stepping back from countries reliant on U.S. funding leaves a significant gap that needs addressing.
Before USAID was largely disbanded in February, President Trump appointed Leon Black’s son, Ben Black, as the head of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). This agency, established during Trump’s first term, is relatively unknown and focuses on facilitating foreign investments.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., DFC operates independently. With USAID’s closure, the role of vice chair—typically held by the USAID administrator—will now be occupied by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Mr. Black will be the CEO, with the Secretary of the Treasury also on the board. Other board members will include private sector representatives and advisors.
This agency aims to counter unfriendly influences like China’s Belt and Road Initiative by backing civilian-led projects in strategic sectors. Critics have raised concerns about the potential for fraud and the alleged misuse of DFC funding for promoting progressive agendas abroad instead of sticking to traditional developmental objectives.
Rumors suggest that Black’s appointment as DFC CEO stemmed from proposals indicating that foreign development agencies could invest in ports and mines in places like Greenland, which Trump had indicated as possible acquisition targets. Black believes that engaging DFC instead of USAID would enable U.S. companies in sectors like infrastructure and mining to further tap into America’s natural resources.
Some political figures pointed out that the Biden administration utilized DFC funding for projects across various industries, raising eyebrows about its focus.
Trump likely views the DFC as integral to countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which is enhancing China’s influence in developing areas, often jeopardizing U.S. national security. Unlike the less controlled approach of USAID, DFC intentionally prioritizes investment in key areas like energy, infrastructure, and telecommunications to fortify America’s global standing and avert Chinese dominance.
For instance, DFC’s investments have aimed to refurbish strategic locations like the Philippines’ Subic Bay to help maintain freedom in the South China Sea and support other alliances against China.
With these priorities, DFC represents something far beyond mere aid funding. It serves as a significant mechanism for the Trump administration to advance strategic competition and an “America First” foreign policy that emphasizes American sovereignty over global commitments.
While Shah and his supporters might advocate for increasing private investment in developing nations, Trump seems committed to transforming the previous administration’s foreign aid model into a robust source of international financing, all while ensuring taxpayer-funded agencies fulfill their objectives.
