On the first day of his second term, President Trump issued an executive order that suspends all foreign aid, except for emergency and military assistance. Earlier this year, a significant reduction of 83% was made to programs under the U.S. International Development Agency.
Critics of USAID have voiced strong opinions, with Elon Musk labeling it a “criminal organization.” There were accusations circulating on social media about USAID spending $60 million on condoms in South Africa. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio tended to downplay the agency’s impact, asserting in Senate hearings that “no one is dead because of USAID,” despite evidence suggesting otherwise.
By mid-year, the majority of USAID’s employees—around 94% of its 4,500 staff—worked overseas and faced layoffs. On July 1, Rubio confirmed that USAID would cease all foreign aid operations, with the State Department reshaping its foreign aid programs to align with the administration’s “America First” priorities.
The dismantling of USAID has already begun to adversely affect millions of impoverished individuals across approximately 130 nations. The weakening of the agency poses risks to national interests as well.
Established in 1961, USAID has long been recognized as a leading entity in humanitarian aid, economic development, and democracy promotion. Its initiatives significantly reduced poverty, improved access to clean water, and helped manage responses to natural disasters, ultimately lowering overall mortality rates. Through partnerships with non-profit organizations, it provided educational opportunities for women in Afghanistan and supported independent media in Eastern Europe.
Some Republicans have criticized USAID, calling it an “awakening,” while others, like those connected to a Catholic charity, benefited from $90 million in USAID funding over the last four years.
A recent study published in The Lancet warned that dismantling USAID could have consequences over the coming decades—potentially causing the deaths of millions, especially among children, linked to declines in healthcare responses initiated through past foreign aid programs.
USAID is often seen as an embodiment of “soft power,” a term describing the subtle strategies employed to exert influence internationally through trade and aid rather than military force.
Meanwhile, China has been actively strengthening its global presence, investing $679 billion between 2013 and 2021 in infrastructure projects, a sum notably larger than U.S. foreign aid spending. This shift has allowed China to take advantage of the gaps left by the reduction of USAID’s activities in places like Nepal and Colombia.
Interestingly, foreign aid in the U.S. represents a relatively small portion of the federal budget, amounting to about 1.2%. USAID accounted for a significant chunk, $43.5 billion of the total $71.9 billion for non-military aid, yet it still pales in comparison to the aid proportions seen in other affluent countries.
Many Americans, as Trump and Rubio likely know, don’t fully grasp the importance and scope of foreign aid. Surveys suggest that people believe it constitutes about 31% of the federal budget, with a substantial faction considering current levels of spending to be excessive.
The removal of USAID creates an opportunity for broader discussions about its roles and the impacts on global health initiatives. In reflecting on past programs like PEPFAR, it prompts a question about humanitarian responsibilities in the face of ongoing global needs.
Offering humanitarian aid is a moral obligation that wealthier nations should uphold, regardless of immediate benefits. A well-supported USAID could ultimately serve to protect and promote U.S. interests in a world where interdependence is ever-increasing.
