In a significant reshuffling of international policy, the United States has chosen to shutter the Agency for International Development (USAID), formally concluding over sixty years of worldwide developmental efforts. USAID, established in 1961 during the era of late President John F. Kennedy, has traditionally been the central authority handling U.S. aid intended to foster humanitarian advances and growth. This includes overseeing initiatives spanning global health, education, agricultural development, the bolstering of democratic processes, and disaster relief measures in more than a hundred countries.
The disbursed funds from this agency have topped $715 billion, considering inflation, symbolizing its far-reaching impact over the years. However, President Donald Trump has consistently voiced opposition to the role and reach of USAID. Trump has made the contention that the significant resources funneled into USAID would be better employed addressing domestic requirements and needs.
The decision to dismantle USAID followed endorsement from the Department of Government Efficiency, which saw the agency as a financial sinkhole. This perspective highlights that the funds distributed via USAID usually represent less than one percent of the aggregate U.S. governmental budget.
The U.S. Secretary of State contributed to these arguments, insisting that USAID’s effectiveness and impact fell notably short. Commenting on the downsides, he pointed out that benefactors of significant aid appeared to offer no commensurate return, associated with growing anti-U.S. sentiment, setting the stage for the planned aid decrease.
In 2023, countries located in the sub-Saharan region of Africa aligned with the United States on key resolutions at the UN just 29 percent of the time, despite having received aid ballooning to the tune of $165 billion since 1991. Moreover, an outpouring of $89 billion to the Middle East and North Africa during the same duration resulted in lower favorability for the U.S. compared to China in every nation in the region, with Morocco being the sole exception.
USAID’s efforts did not fare better in Gaza and the West Bank where the agency funneled an estimated $9.3 billion since 1991, unfortunately cultivating a wave of resentment rather than appreciation for the United States. It has been noted that leaders in these developing nations have developed a reliance on USAID’s largely charitable assistance system.
The U.S. Secretary of State heralded this closure as an end to an era marked by government-approved inefficiency. ‘The present Government’, he added, ‘will at last have the opportunity to execute an overseas aid mission that aligns with our national interests.’
This reform is likely to position the U.S. more favorably in the global race with China’s ‘aid with strings attached’ model, and will guide its objective to further its strategic interests in pivotal regions worldwide.
The Secretary of State reassured that shifting the lens towards America does not mean an abandonment of the country’s humanitarian commitment. ‘We will not backtrack on our dedication or intent to deliver life-saving humanitarian aid and facilitate economic development overseas. However, these efforts need to reflect an America First policy,’ he pronounced.
He emphasized that future foreign assistance programs would be green-lit only if they align with the administration’s strategies, ensuring more accountability, strategy, and efficacy in delivery.