On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order implementing a 90-day freeze on foreign assistance, effectively halting most U.S. foreign aid programs. Over the following weeks, the Trump administration took unexpected measures to shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).. Recent projections claim that only 200 out of the agency’s 10,200 workers will be retained. USAID, created by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, is an organization that deals with global healthcare, humanitarian assistance, and economic growth to advance U.S. foreign policy interests in developing nations. It operates in over 130 countries, partnering with 4,000 organizations and operated with a budget of $40 billion. The agency also plays a role in promoting democracy, as it has supported 60 elections worldwide. The recent Trump Admin actions have thrown the humanitarian aid world upside down. According to __SOURCE, the United States contributes about four out of every ten dollars committed to humanitarian relief in crises. With the freezing of USAID,thousands of aid organizations lost funding overnight, thousands of USAID employees were placed on administrative leave, and hundreds of thousands of refugees lost access to critical aid.
This abrupt decision to dismantle USAID came after the USAID’s financial transparency came into question. Critics, including Elon Musk, have accused it of corruption and challenged its uses of capital. Musk described USAID as a “criminal organization” that “must die.” Others have branded it an unregulated, partisan tool of the Democratic Party.
However, Daphne McCurdy, the Agency’s former Deputy Assistant Administrator, argues that USAID’s budget was closely reviewed and approved by both parties in Congress. McCurdy stated that “over 80 percent of USAID funding is earmarked by Congress in bipartisan bills, leaving very little flexibility as to how the money is spent.” She further explained that “the process to determine exactly where money goes after it is appropriated involves extensive coordination and ultimate approval from the State Department and the White House Office of Management and Budget, in addition to extensive consultations with Congress.”
Yet, there is limited evidence to substantiate some of the recent accusations against USAID. And while these debates are happening, the global humanitarian aid community has been plunged into uncertainty. Mark Goldberg, from the podcast Global Dispatches, says, “HIV patients have been turned away from clinics that provided antiretrovirals as part of the hugely successful President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program.” Public health programs, like those credited with helping end polio and smallpox epidemics and an acclaimed HIV/AIDS program that saved more than 20 million lives in Africa, have stopped. When funding is cut, even for a short period, the ramifications can be disastrous. For instance, Sasha Chanoff of RefugeePoint highlighted that “in 2015 a massive reduction in aid in the Middle East led to nearly a million Syrians and other refugees risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean to get into Europe. To this day refugees are losing their lives on those and other deadly routes when they don’t have hope where they are.”
The key now is to channel aid strategically, using it as an incentive to reinforce Pax Americana. A carrot-and-stick approach should be implemented by the U.S. government to ensure compliance with its strategic imperatives: nations that align with American objectives receive financial support, while those that resist may face funding cuts, tariffs, or sanctions.
Rather than eliminating USAID funding altogether, I believe the key is to increase accountability and bipartisan agreement on the means and ends of US humanitarian assistance. It’s unlikely that USAID will survive this onslaught, but my hope is that one or more organizations rise from its ashes and operate with greater transparency, efficiency, and alignment with U.S. strategic interests. For instance, it’s probably not in U.S. tax payers best interests to fund musical in Ireland. Rather, American capital should be used to purchase loyalty from geopolitical swing states. Americas could build hospitals in Kenya in return for its support in key multilateral organization votes. A restructured system would ensure that aid serves both humanitarian purposes and America’s long-term geopolitical goals, maximizing the return on US taxpayers’ hard-earned investment.
