Trump’s push to shut down USAID sparks debate over America’s global humanitarian role

President Donald Trump has announced plans to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), alleging widespread financial mismanagement and inefficiency within the agency. This move has triggered intense political debate, both domestically and internationally, as critics warn that it could significantly weaken America’s global influence and disrupt critical humanitarian efforts worldwide.

USAID, established in 1961, has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, tasked with delivering humanitarian assistance, supporting economic development, and promoting democratic values in over 100 countries. However, Trump’s administration claims that the agency has become a hub of wasteful spending, accusing it of misusing taxpayer funds without presenting concrete evidence to support these allegations. In line with his “America First” agenda, Trump argues that dismantling USAID is essential to curbing what he views as unnecessary foreign aid expenditures.

Trump’s USAID shutdown plan reflects his long-standing scepticism toward foreign aid, which he often frames as a drain on American resources. In his recent remarks, he labelled the agency as “corrupt,” asserting that the funds intended for international development projects are frequently misallocated or lost to fraud. Despite the lack of verified reports to substantiate these claims, the proposal has gained traction among segments of Trump’s political base who support reduced government spending abroad.

What are the potential impacts of shutting down USAID?

The proposed USAID shutdown plan would reduce the agency’s workforce from approximately 10,000 employees to just over 600, retaining only staff focused on critical humanitarian assistance and global health emergencies. This drastic reduction would effectively dismantle USAID’s programmes related to democracy promotion, human rights advocacy, economic development, and conflict prevention.

The consequences of this move are far-reaching. USAID has been instrumental in responding to global crises such as the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the Ebola outbreaks in Africa, and humanitarian emergencies in conflict zones like Syria and Yemen. Its programmes provide food aid, healthcare support, educational initiatives, and disaster relief to vulnerable populations worldwide. The sudden withdrawal of U.S. assistance could exacerbate suffering in fragile states, potentially leading to increased instability, migration crises, and the resurgence of preventable diseases.

Experts in foreign policy argue that cutting USAID’s funding will not only harm the recipients of aid but also undermine U.S. national security interests. Gordon Brown, former British Prime Minister and United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education, highlighted that U.S. foreign aid is a strategic investment in global stability. According to Brown, reducing America’s role in international development could create a vacuum that adversarial powers like China and Russia would quickly fill, expanding their influence in critical regions through aggressive development diplomacy.

Who is driving the USAID shutdown agenda within the Trump administration?

Elon Musk, appointed by President Trump to head the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has been a key figure in pushing for the agency’s closure. Known for his disruptive approach to business, Musk has been tasked with identifying and eliminating what the administration views as inefficient government operations. In his assessment, USAID is beyond reform, describing it as a “viper’s nest of inefficiency” and advocating for its complete dissolution rather than incremental restructuring.

Musk’s involvement in government reform has added a provocative element to the debate. While his business acumen is seen by some as an asset in streamlining federal agencies, critics argue that applying corporate cost-cutting principles to foreign aid overlooks the complexities of international relations and humanitarian work. Unlike profit-driven enterprises, agencies like USAID operate within a framework that prioritises long-term global stability, human rights, and diplomatic engagement—objectives that cannot be measured solely by financial metrics.

Is it legally possible for Trump to shut down USAID?

The legality of Trump’s USAID shutdown plan is already facing scrutiny. USAID was established by Congress, and legal experts argue that the president does not have the unilateral authority to dismantle an agency created through legislative action. The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 further solidified USAID’s independent status, limiting the executive branch’s ability to alter its structure without congressional approval.

In response to the proposed shutdown, federal employee unions, including the American Foreign Service Association, have filed lawsuits challenging the administration’s authority to proceed without legislative consent. They argue that the plan violates constitutional principles of separation of powers and threatens the livelihoods of thousands of public servants dedicated to advancing America’s global mission.

Legal analysts suggest that while the president can influence USAID’s budget and strategic direction, outright dissolution would require congressional action. This sets the stage for a potential legal battle that could determine the limits of executive power over independent federal agencies.

What would the shutdown mean for global humanitarian efforts?

The potential fallout from USAID’s closure extends far beyond American borders. The agency has played a critical role in combating global health threats such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis through partnerships with international organisations. Its agricultural programmes help alleviate hunger and malnutrition in regions facing food insecurity, while its education initiatives promote literacy, gender equality, and workforce development.

Eliminating these programmes could trigger a global humanitarian crisis. Health experts warn that cutting funding for disease prevention could lead to outbreaks of preventable illnesses, while development economists predict that reduced support for fragile economies could fuel political instability, conflict, and forced migration. The absence of U.S. leadership in these areas would not only harm vulnerable populations but also diminish America’s soft power—the ability to influence global affairs through diplomacy, culture, and development assistance.

Humanitarian organisations have voiced strong opposition to the USAID shutdown plan, arguing that foreign aid is both a moral imperative and a strategic tool. Without U.S. support, many international aid programmes would face severe funding shortfalls, jeopardising their ability to respond to natural disasters, health emergencies, and complex humanitarian crises.

What’s next for USAID and U.S. foreign policy?

As the Trump administration moves forward with its proposal, the future of USAID hangs in the balance. The plan will likely face significant challenges in Congress, where bipartisan support for foreign aid has historically been strong. International allies, advocacy groups, and legal experts are expected to exert pressure on lawmakers to protect the agency’s mission.

The debate over USAID’s fate reflects a broader ideological divide about America’s role in the world. While Trump’s supporters view the shutdown as a bold move toward fiscal responsibility and government efficiency, critics argue that it represents a dangerous retreat from America’s global leadership.

Ultimately, the decision will shape not only the future of U.S. foreign aid but also America’s identity on the world stage—whether as a champion of humanitarian values or a nation turning inward at the expense of global stability.