Introduction
Since its founding in 1961, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been a key component of U.S. foreign policy, leading the country's development and humanitarian initiatives. Established by President John F. Kennedy amid the Cold War to "counter Soviet influence abroad," USAID functions as a separate government organization under the Secretary of State's strategic direction. The agency is in charge of managing tens of billions of dollars in international aid each year and is financed by Congress through the State, International Operations, and Related Programs appropriations each fiscal year. [1]
For more than six decades, USAID has led the way in coordinating global emergency responses and boosting long-term development operations, serving as a way for the country to establish “soft power,” which is the “ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion or payment.” [2] Notably, USAID has spearheaded crucial health initiatives, including the 1960s smallpox eradication, the global polio fight, and the implementation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The agency has been instrumental in addressing major humanitarian crises, such as the global food security crisis. More recently, during the COVID-19 epidemic, USAID played a significant role in vaccine distribution, humanitarian assistance, and health worker support. Its wide range of operations is a reflection of its primary goals, which are to "assist U.S. commercial interests by supporting developing countries’ economic growth, lead U.S. efforts to alleviate poverty, disease, and humanitarian need, and provide assistance to strategically important countries and countries in conflict.” [3] Furthermore, others claim that the agency has "underpinned U.S. national security and cultivated goodwill toward the United States." [1]
However, in recent years, USAID has come under more criticism, especially during the Trump administration. In keeping with the recommendations of Project 2025, a conservative transition plan released by the Heritage Foundation, President Donald Trump has redoubled his efforts to "scale back USAID's global footprint" and "deradicalize USAID's programs and structures." During his first term, Trump attempted to cut USAID's budget by almost a third. On his first day back in office, Trump declared that the "United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values" and signed an executive order freezing most foreign aid for 90 days. While certain waivers were granted for vital humanitarian projects, a lack of clarity regarding their implementation has effectively cut short financing, resulting in widespread layoffs and furloughs. [1] In a move that has further fueled controversy, the White House, under Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, has initiated a thorough investigation into USAID spending, with claims of “waste and abuse” stemming from initiatives like “$2 million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala.” [4] Despite these criticisms, pausing or significantly reducing USAID's operations is not as beneficial for the average American as some might believe. Such actions could be more harmful, leading to the undermining of long-standing development efforts and diminishing the country's ability to respond effectively to global crises.
II. The Human Cost
In particular, the destruction of vulnerable people who depend on foreign assistance for life and reconstruction would be one of the most significant consequences of suspending USAID financing. A prime example is the global response to HIV/AIDS, which heavily relies on USAID support. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a USAID-assisted program, has saved over 26 million lives by investing in care, prevention, and support across 55 countries. While HIV/AIDS programs have received waivers to continue, significant disruptions to treatment services are already occurring. These disruptions are evident in community health drop-in centers, where, for instance, approximately 5,000 health workers and 10,000 clerical staff in Ethiopia, whose positions depended on USAID funding, have lost their jobs. Furthermore, the impact isn't limited to Ethiopia; similar disruptions are affecting HIV/AIDS clinics in other nations, including Uganda, which is shutting all its clinics down. The potential for widespread devastation is starkly illustrated by Christine Stegling, a deputy executive director at UNAIDS, who warned that if PEPFAR does not formally resume receiving USAID funding for the 2025-2029 period, AIDS-related deaths could increase by as much as 400%. [5] Similarly, USAID's humanitarian efforts provide a critical lifeline to millions displaced by conflict in war-torn regions like Syria and Yemen. The timing of the funding pause is particularly detrimental. It coincides with the establishment of a new interim government led by Ahmed al-Shara, which is relying heavily on U.S. assistance to support the state-building process. Without this foreign aid, Syria's fragile recovery is jeopardized, especially as humanitarian needs reach an all-time high. In 2024, an estimated 16.7 million people required assistance, one of the largest figures since the 2011 civil war began. [6] Consequently, a reduction or freeze in aid has deprived and continues to deprive these populations of essential healthcare, food, clean water, and education, leading to immense suffering. As the world's leading nation, the United States has a moral obligation to keep helping so that the most vulnerable individuals do not suffer further. Human dignity is undermined when this duty is neglected, which contradicts the very ideals that the United States has long championed.
III. U.S. Reputation and Global Influence.
Beyond the immediate harm to vulnerable communities, stopping USAID financing has a significant negative impact on the US's image and influence internationally. As popular diplomacy and soft power tactics have developed, the capacity to convince and appeal to people rather than use force has grown in significance in international affairs. For a long time, the United States has relied on its humanitarian initiatives, such as those led by USAID, to enhance its reputation and foster goodwill worldwide. This reputation and trust form the bedrock of American soft power; therefore, the loss of these vital development resources directly undermines the nation's standing. As evidenced by the backlash against American ideals during the Iraq War, which ultimately undermined U.S. credibility despite attempts to promote positive narratives, reputation is difficult to regain once damaged. [2] Furthermore, failing to support humanitarian initiatives not only alienates allies across the globe and weakens the United States' ability to lead within the international community but it also sends a message to the countries it is aiding: the U.S. is unreliable, disinterested, and increasingly incompetent. [7] Now, a vacuum has been created, leaving a significant opportunity for other countries like China, which has recently increased its foreign aid in a calculated manner, focusing on resource extraction and infrastructure development in Asia and Africa. China, Africa's largest bilateral creditor, offers “an alternate funding source for mining, energy, and infrastructure projects.” Africa's increasing need to strike a balance between political autonomy and economic progress is in line with this help. Crucially, China has established a reputation for "friendship" and "mutual benefit" by avoiding the conditionalities frequently associated with Western aid, establishing itself as a trustworthy partner for many African leaders. As a result, China's expanding influence in Africa is viewed as a potential alternative to Western aid, particularly given the United States' declining commitment to international development. China has enabled billions of dollars in loans, investments, and infrastructure projects through programs like the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), reshaping the playing field. [8] This change might have far-reaching effects that go beyond short-term political calculations, leaving a legacy of mistrust and lost opportunities in America that could take decades to heal.
IV. Security and Economic Consequences
Eliminating USAID money is more than just a humanitarian mistake; it's a short-sighted choice that jeopardizes long-term stability, both globally and domestically. By tackling the underlying causes of instability, such as poverty, conflict, and sickness, which frequently feed terrorism, unchecked migration, and economic upheaval, investing in failing countries directly supports U.S. national security. [9] Previous experiences show that well-run aid initiatives benefit both the United States and the recipient nations. In particular, U.S. foreign aid was essential to the Marshall Plan's reconstruction of Europe, stabilizing the continent while also promoting economic expansion that boosted the U.S. economy by creating new markets for commerce. [10] Recently, U.S. assistance has been crucial to the reconstruction of nations in Africa and the Middle East, the bolstering of democratic institutions, and the establishment of more stable trading conditions. These initiatives would become unstable if USAID financing were cut, compromising disease response systems, threatening global health security, and raising the risk of future wars. [11] Additionally, it would impede the growth of global markets, which could increase U.S. exports. As a result, maintaining support for USAID is not only morally required but also a calculated investment in long-term international stability and American economic interests.
V. USAID Pause Benefits?
However, given the growing demands on national resources, some contend that the USAID freeze would be beneficial for the United States to prioritize domestic spending above overseas aid. This perspective is exemplified by Donald Trump’s “America First” policy. He and many others think that redirecting money from overseas aid to domestic initiatives will benefit American citizens more because of the growing expenses of healthcare, infrastructure, and education. Around 67% of Americans want to expand the federal budget for healthcare, 66% for education, 66% for infrastructure improvements, and 58% for Social Security. On the other hand, half want to cut back on government spending on military aid and economic aid to other countries. [12] Yet, these perspectives don’t keep in mind the interconnectedness between American interests and global stability. USAID only makes up 0.7% of the federal budget, and in reality, foreign aid, notably in health, education, and infrastructure, not only helps other countries thrive but also benefits the United States economically and diplomatically. [1] Ignoring international aid in favor of domestic aid might cause instability in vital areas, necessitating more expensive military deployments and posing new problems for American foreign policy. Therefore, reducing foreign aid would ultimately jeopardize U.S. national security and global influence, leaving the nation less equipped to face the challenges of an increasingly linked globe, even though domestic objectives are crucial.
VI. Conclusion
The debate surrounding USAID’s funding transcends mere budgetary considerations. It forces a fundamental choice: to uphold a vision of global leadership rooted in collaborative development and humanitarianism or to retreat into a state of isolationism. The evidence presented demonstrates that cutting USAID’s support is not a fiscally sound strategy but a self-inflicted wound. It weakens our global standing, hands influence to strategic global competitors on a silver platter, and undermines the foundations of international stability upon which our security rests. The perceived benefits of redirecting these funds domestically are outweighed by the extreme costs: the loss of lives, the dissolution of trust, and the creation of tension. To prioritize short-term domestic gains at the expense of long-term global stability is a false economy. This is a complex situation, and eradicating the agency is not a simple solution that can solve the inadequacy of domestic aid. One cannot ignore the U.S.’s connection and influence on the rest of the world. The choice laid out before us is not simply about dollars and cents but about the kind of nation we aspire to be. Will we continue to invest in a safer, more prosperous world for all, or will we retreat, leaving a legacy of missed opportunities, diminished influences, and a destroyed country?
FOOTNOTES
COMING SOON
"The Pause on USAID"
OPINION PIECE by: ANGEL HAGAN ✦ UNITED STATES