The Demise of USAID
Sophia Alicea
Staff Writer
The lights have dimmed in USAID offices around the world. Thousands have lost their jobs, and with only 294 set to remain, according to The New York Times, a stain is forever left on the United States’ history of humanitarian aid. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been a cornerstone of America’s soft power—one that continued to shape humanitarian development and political influence and is now a shell of its former self.
By February 4, a week after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Reuters reported a startling announcement from his administration’s plan to dismantle 90 percent of USAID, a move that was met with disbelief and concern. The sudden withdrawal, coinciding with an immediate freeze on foreign assistance, was a jolt to the global humanitarian community. As per a document sourced by Devex, USAID canceled awards of nearly $75.9 billion, including $48.2 billion obligated within grants and contracts with other countries and redevelopment programs.
The cuts most severely affected humanitarian and health programs. Following the aid cut, $34 million worth of antiretroviral medications are still in storage facilities in Kenya, leaving thousands of HIV-positive individuals uncertain about when they will get their next dose, according to Reuters.
The Center for Global Development notes that 26 nations are most likely to experience disruptions if U.S. health aid is discontinued. More than half of the public health budgets in many of these nations, including South Sudan, Afghanistan, and Somalia, are financed by the U.S.’s abrupt halt to treatment initiatives. Aid to these areas puts vulnerable public health systems in danger of collapsing and leaves these nations in a precarious situation, struggling to cope with the sudden loss of support.
Geopolitical rivals now have more room in the void left by the U.S.’s disengagement. China, in lieu of the U.S., swooped in to provide significant humanitarian aid following a 7.7-magnitude earthquake that struck Myanmar on March 28, sending personnel and committing $14 million in aid. According to ABC News, the U.S. response, which included a $2 million pledge, was not operationally present and was delayed.
The disparity in responses highlights a broader realignment of power in the Indo-Pacific. Formerly heavily dependent on Western and American development aid, Myanmar is now relying more on Beijing. In addition to addressing a pressing humanitarian need, China’s prompt and conspicuous aid delivery strengthened its long-term regional strategy of gaining influence through emergency assistance and infrastructure. In a region becoming increasingly crucial to international competition, the U.S. lost both goodwill and strategic ground by retreating, as reported by Reuters in another article.
These events point to a disturbing pattern of Western withdrawal from international aid. According to Chatham House, the UK announced in March that it would reduce its aid budget by billions. The simultaneous withdrawal of the U.S. and the UK from development assistance may realign global influence, favoring China and other emerging donors.
Despite a few legacy projects, the agency’s operational capacity is severely limited. Few programs remained, primarily those related to disaster resilience and private sector partnerships. According to Think Global Health, among the first to lose funding were long-term development projects in fields like women’s empowerment, agriculture, and education.
The U.S. is not just suffering an operational loss; this choice also impacts its reputation. The U.S. established itself as a trustworthy international partner post-World War II. However, the dependability of U.S. aid commitments has vanished due to project sites being abandoned in the middle of implementation and contracts being terminated abruptly.
The consequences of USAID’s actions are presumably going to last for years. Many impacted programs were designed with U.S. infrastructure, contractors, and systems in mind, even though other donors might try to cover gaps. If it occurs, duplicating them will take a substantial amount of time. Meanwhile, aid agencies warn of a rise in food insecurity, avoidable illness, and diminished access to essential services in dozens of nations. Although it may be challenging to measure, the political cost will likely be high.
Image courtesy of Getty Images.
