USAID has long served as both a humanitarian force and a tool of U.S. foreign policy, delivering aid and influence for over six decades. The agency has been a crucial leg in the three-legged stool of U.S. foreign policy—development, defense, and diplomacy—promoting stability through aid. From disaster relief to disease prevention, its programs have saved lives and strengthened alliances. However, a sweeping policy shift under the Trump administration has upended this long-standing institution, raising concerns about U.S. global influence and the potential for geopolitical competitors—especially China—to fill the void.
On January 20, 2025, an executive order dissolved USAID as an independent agency, transferring its functions to the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). USAID’s D.C. headquarters was shut down, and by day’s end, Secretary of State Marco Rubio assumed control, with Peter Marocco—linked to the January 6 insurrection—named deputy administrator. Musk’s DOGE team sidelined senior officials and suspended security staff, gaining access to classified materials and entry to sensitive government data.
Though USAID and the State Department have long operated as distinct but linked agencies, the aid freeze will weaken effectiveness even if later restored. USAID’s independence historically allowed it to be an effective first responder in crisis zones. Proponents argue the change will streamline operations, but disruption has been immediate, delaying aid and leaving key partner organizations in financial limbo.
The fallout has been severe: Uganda lost critical airport screenings for a Sudan Virus outbreak, Afghan women lost maternal health support, and anti-human trafficking efforts were crippled. Even fentanyl-smuggling enforcement at Mexico’s Manzanillo port has been weakened. Exemptions included military aid to Israel and Egypt, with a vague waiver raising more questions than answers. Former USAID chief Gayle Smith heavily criticizes the shift: “When you pull all of that out, you send some very dangerous messages. The US is signaling that we don’t care whether people live or die and that we’re not a reliable partner.”
Musk has called the agency “criminal” adding that “it has to die.” Trump’s original executive order (EO) on January 20, 2025 froze U.S. foreign aid for 90 days. Then, on February 4, the administration launched a sweeping 180-day review of all U.S.-funded international organizations, treaties, and conventions—signaling a broader pullback from global commitments. Slashing billions in aid doesn’t just erode U.S. credibility—it destabilizes regions, shifting influence toward economic rivals like China.
USAID’s budget reductions gut programs like food security, maternal health, and disaster relief. Officials frame the cuts as fiscal responsibility, insisting wealthier allies should share the burden. The reality? Once dismantled, these programs rarely return. This isn’t just about balancing the books—it’s an abandonment of America’s leadership in humanitarian aid.
The human toll has been immediate. Malaria cases are set to spike as prevention programs lose funding. Fewer shipments of U.S. food aid mean millions facing starvation. NGOs that rely on USAID grants will shutter, leading to fewer clinics, fewer doctors, and more preventable deaths. Weakening global health systems also raises the risk of pandemics.
A Junior Professional Officer (JPO) with UNICEF warns, “This is a direct result of Trump allowing an unelected official control of a congressional-appointed entity. The takedown of USAID will directly harm millions of people across the globe, not to mention leave millions without jobs, potentially myself included… I know firsthand how Americans are seen on a global level, and USAID’s work is one of the few positive examples we implement as taxpayers” (author interview, 2025). The USAID-funded JPO program is designed to open professional pathways into the UN.
As of February 12, the JPO fund was frozen and 800 contracts were terminated, leaving participants worldwide in limbo and threatening to reshape the pipeline of rising U.N. professionals. Among the many legal repercussions, this triggered a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (Case 1:25-CV-00402-AHA). Two days later, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze U.S. foreign aid, offering a lifeline to crippled programs—but the tug-of-war isn’t over yet.
Geopolitical Consequences
The U.S. retreat isn’t happening in a vacuum; it’s creating one. Even longtime U.S. allies like Jordan are being forced into politically impossible positions, losing support just as they need it most. As Washington voluntarily sidelines itself, Beijing isn’t just filling the gap; it’s rewriting global development rules.
Unlike USAID, which operates on grants that do not need to be repaid, China’s aid model prioritizes high-interest loans, creating long-term debt traps. China channels aid through CIDCA, MOFCOM, and state-owned banks like China Exim Bank, focusing on infrastructure investments rather than humanitarian relief. While China’s model hasn’t become more sympathetic, abrupt U.S. restructuring invites volatility, risk, and uncertainty, shattering trust with partners abroad.
While some Americans might dismiss foreign aid as unnecessary charity, the cuts will hit the U.S. economy, too. USAID contracts sustain thousands of American jobs in logistics, development, and medical supply distribution. As of early 2025, USAID’s workforce has been gutted from over 10,000 direct employees to just 294. Even if aid is restored, mass layoffs have disrupted the knowledge transfer critical to effective programs.
Beyond direct employment, U.S. companies stand to lose billions in contracts tied to development initiatives and result in tens of thousands of additional job losses amongst American and international personnel who have depended on these longstanding contracts. The ripple effects will weaken industries once bolstered by global aid engagement, giving competitors an advantage and weaken trust that took decades to build.
Foreign policy experts, military leaders, and humanitarian advocates across the political spectrum have condemned these cuts. While some fiscal conservatives back them, even prominent Republicans warn that gutting USAID is a strategic blunder. Aid isn’t just about relief—it’s about preventing instability, mass migration, economic collapse, environmental insecurity, and extremist recruitment. The costs of disengagement will come back to haunt Washington, fueling bigger crises in the long run.
Public opinion on foreign aid has always been mixed. Many Americans support humanitarian assistance but question its efficiency. Yet USAID’s budget represents less than 1% of total U.S. government spending—a rounding error in the broader fiscal landscape. In 2024, USAID’s budget stood at $30.3 billion—0.084% of the $36 trillion national debt. The supposed savings are minimal, but the long-term costs of withdrawal are severe.
Each abandoned program creates space for China and other nations to shape global development priorities. If this trajectory continues, the U.S. risks not just financial indebtedness to China but diplomatic sidelining as nations increasingly turn to Beijing for stability. This is yet another move pushing the U.S. further into isolation, making it a cultural and political pariah.
What Comes Next?
If Washington withdraws from global leadership in development and foreign aid, it may one day find itself on the receiving end of the very power dynamics it once shaped. Most experts agree: these cuts aren’t temporary adjustments. They mark a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy.
The consequences may not be felt immediately in Washington, but in war-torn regions, disaster zones, and struggling economies, they already are. The question now isn’t just what happens next—it’s whether Washington is prepared for the consequences of its own retreat.