The End of an Era: The Dismantling of USAID and its Global Repercussions

By Elsa Hermanns

Since Trump returned to power, a discreet but devastating turmoil has shaken international humanitarian aid. This seismic shift is taking the form of the abrupt suspension of programmes by USAID (the United States Agency for International Development). De facto, this agency was the backer of many international humanitarian aid contracts. Behind this political decision lies a major upheaval with tangible consequences for millions of people. Stopping this aid has brought non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to their knees, broken chains of solidarity around the world, and undermined already precarious balances in regions of the world exposed to hunger, disease, and violence. 

In this way, at a time when the protectionist ideology of “America First” is redefining American priorities, we can ask ourselves the question: Can one, in the name of an ideology, abandon part of the world without causing a humanitarian catastrophe?

American Soft Power Depended On It: USAID, the pillar that was knocked down

Founded in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, USAID was for decades one of the main instruments of American soft power. It enabled the country to make a name for itself internationally, and shone through in its usefulness. The agency financed projects in health, education, food security, economic development, and so on. It accounted for 42 per cent of international humanitarian aid. Much more than a simple diplomatic tool, USAID embodied a certain vision of the United States' role in the world: soft power. As such, it embodied American values, accepted by consensus by both Republicans and Democrats. 

However, this vision came up against a brutal reversal with the Trump administration. The latter saw international aid not as a lever of influence, but as a budgetary waste in the service of progressive ideologies deemed contrary to national identity - woke ideas. The result? A series of executive orders which, in the span of ninety days, brought the majority of US foreign aid programmes to a screeching halt.

Millions of People Abandoned Overnight: The aid cut-off that changed everything

The suspension, without notice, of USAID has had devastating consequences for many international NGOs. In South Africa, for example, the Greater Rape Intervention Project (GRIP), which worked to combat sexual violence, was 100 per cent dependent on American funding (almost 400,000 euros). This organisation offered essential support to victims in South Africa, accompanying them through every stage of the process - legal, psychological and physical. When the aid was cut off, the organisation found itself without the means or notice to continue its activities.

More generally, around seventeen per cent of the fight against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa was funded by the United States, via direct grants to local associations. So the disappearance of this support is jeopardising HIV prevention and treatment efforts. This poses a very real risk of a resurgence of infections that could lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths. 

NGOs Strangled by Trumpist Ideology 

The dismantling of USAID was justified not only on financial grounds, but also on ideological ones. Officially, the Trump administration - and Elon Musk - claimed it was necessary to cut back on what it saw as excessive spending and to address alleged fraud within the agency. However, these claims often relied on exaggerated or misleading figures, like the infamous 60 million dollars supposedly spent on condoms that were never delivered. Beyond the financial rhetoric, deeper political motives were at play, especially the Trump Administration's ideology of protectionism. Consequently, the White House imposed new requirements on recipient NGOs. They are now being asked to justify that their programmes are not part of the ‘woke culture’, that they are not a DIE (diversity, inclusion, equity) programme. The questions asked are unequivocal and, above all, abusive. Here are some examples of the questions asked : 

• “Does your project have a measurable positive impact for US industry and on the economy?”

• “How does your programme contribute to the fight against illegal immigration?”

• “Can you confirm that your project is not a DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) programme?”

These conditions present NGOs with an ethical dilemma: agree to bow to an ideology that runs counter to their values, or lose their main funder. For many, this means redundancies, stopping projects and giving up vital work.

Humanitarian Consequences: A world in crisis

The US withdrawal has left a gap that no one is in a position to fill. Whether it is  Europe, which also cut its humanitarian budget, or the Foundation Bill - and - Melinda Gates. The BRICS - a group formed by five countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa -  theoretically could and would like to. But it will never be to the same extent as the US did. 

Consequently, the World Health Organisation has lost twenty per cent of its budget. Programmes to combat malaria, malnutrition, and infectious diseases have been halted or severely curtailed. Every day, millions more people suffer from hunger - nearly 733 million worldwide. Since January, NGOs have had to make tough choices: who to save first? Where to send the meagre remaining resources?

The turmoil caused by the end of USAID was felt all over the world. Emergency aid in the event of natural disasters or armed conflict was suspended overnight. And for some regions, it's literally a question of survival, but NGOs find themselves tied hand and foot without funding.  The result of such cuts is a world where humanitarian aid is becoming a luxury, even though the needs have never been greater.

A System to Rethink from the Top of Dond

This human cataclysm highlights an excessive dependence on US funding. This is a statement by former British diplomat Tom Fletcher. As a result, all stakeholders understood that it was time to rethink the international aid system. It needs to be diversified, and more resilient financing mechanisms need to be built.

However, it is easier said than done since this involves several transformations. Firstly with the diversification of donors by strengthening the role of non-Western states, the private sector, and philanthropy in general. Secondly, countries must create multilateral emergency funds, capable of quickly taking over in the event of a sudden withdrawal from a donor. Thereby also the relaxation of ideological conditions, so that NGOs are no longer forced to deny their fundamental ethical principles. Additionally NGOs must increase transparency to respond to criticism - based or otherwise - if called out for poor financial management of certain programs.

Conclusion: The legacy of a disappearance

USAID has been the victim of an American plot against wokeism. Moreover, its brutal disappearance without an alternative is a global tragedy for humanitarian aid. 

This withdrawal has revealed a brutal reality: without credible international solidarity, it is the most vulnerable who pay the price. Children without vaccines, women who are victims of violence without assistance, and people with HIV or malaria without treatment. And NGOs, who, cornered, must justify that helping is not an ideology but a human necessity.

In a changing world, the question is not just who to help but how. And above all: how long can we turn a blind eye to the consequences of US disengagement without compromising global stability?

Sources: Council on Foreign Relations, Diplo, Le Monde (USAID episode), World Health Organization

Written by Elsa Hermanns

Edited by Nina Gush & Sarah Valkenburg