The Cost of the Trump Administration’s Foreign Aid Debacle

Larry Garber served as a former senior U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) policy official during the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama administrations, including five years as the USAID mission director to the West Bank and Gaza. He is a CFR life member.

Those who work in international development have suffered professional and emotional whiplash since President Donald Trump was inaugurated. The consequence of Trump’s actions, and those of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Elon Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency, is the effective dismantling of USAID, which has served an essential component in the national security toolkit for decades. It also disrupts the lives of countless public servants and others who work for or with USAID. 

USAID’s history dates to passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [PDF] and President John F. Kennedy’s decision to unify several foreign assistance programs under one agency. For more than sixty years, USAID has provided assistance to developing countries across multiple sectors, responded to natural and man-made disasters with humanitarian assistance, and contributed to U.S. political objectives in post-conflict and strategically important settings. Presidents and national security leaders have repeatedly asserted that USAID’s provision of foreign assistance serves as a vital soft-power complement to defense and diplomacy in promoting U.S. interests. The first Trump administration even lauded USAID as the world’s premier bilateral development agency.

Former Representative Mark Green (R-WI), who served as the USAID administrator for most of Trump’s first term, managed to operate under the political radar while introducing new programmatic initiatives, including:

• a private-sector engagement policy [PDF];
• a renewed emphasis on partnerships with local organizations; and
• a women’s global development and prosperity initiative in conjunction with Ivanka Trump.

The first Trump administration also saw the formation of the International Development Finance Corporation and approval of the Global Fragility Act. 

The Targeting of Foreign Aid

With the reelection of Trump, many USAID staff and other international development actors anticipated directional shifts but not a head-on effort to abolish the agency. And yet, a close reading of the chapter on foreign assistance in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 highlighted an antipathy to specific lines of agency efforts and a desire to dramatically restructure the U.S. government’s approach to foreign assistance. A separate Heritage Foundation report [PDF] sought to demonstrate widespread Democratic Party leanings in the political preferences of career staff at USAID, which has bizarrely morphed into the claim by President Trump that the agency is run by “radical lunatics.”

Without a serious review of agency operations, the new political team has concluded that USAID spends money inefficiently and that its programs are inconsistent with Trump’s vision of U.S. national interests. In public comments, Rubio, who used to be a big proponent of USAID as a senator, accused agency personnel of insubordination by withholding documents from the new political appointees.

The reality is that USAID career staff are professionals who ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted and that the benefits from authorized programs are maximized. Not surprisingly, they endeavor to have their voices heard and are wary of abrupt changes. However, through many political transitions, USAID staff have dutifully implemented the policy and programmatic course set by the new leadership; claims to the contrary are unfounded. 

Within just a few days, the Trump team has embarked on a slash-and-burn campaign that has marginalized and demoralized USAID’s dedicated and knowledgeable staff. Career staff have been frozen out of policy discussions and their expertise ignored. Especially damaging—and a signal of malign intent—is the directive that all USAID foreign service officers serving abroad must return to Washington within thirty days, disrupting their personal lives and eliminating their role in ensuring taxpayer resources are not wasted. Equally painful will be the impact on USAID’s local staff, many of whom have worked decades for the U.S. government, and who are now being abruptly abandoned; in some countries, they may even be targeted for having worked for USAID. 

Soft Power Setback

U.S. diplomatic and defense interests around the world are threatened by this out-of-control process: 

• In Ukraine, more than $38 billion in assistance provided by USAID between 2022 and 2024 ensures that Ukraine’s economy and institutions remain resilient, and the funds provided are monitored in real time by a Special Inspector General dedicated to Ukraine.
• In Syria, USAID programs contribute to the containment of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, also known as ISIS.
• In Lebanon, assistance advances the long-called for rebuilding of a civilian government without Hezbollah.
• In war-ravaged Gaza, U.S. aid addresses immediate humanitarian needs and enhances prospects for a long-term cease-fire.
• Closer to home, U.S. assistance supports Central American governments’ capacity to control gangs and grow their economies, thus reducing incentives to migrate to the United States. 

Finally, a weakened foreign assistance infrastructure compromises the United States’ ability to compete with China for global influence. In Africa, for example, USAID programs enhance relationships between U.S. and African governments, which are necessary for maintaining access to critical minerals needed for the growth of a digital economy. Meanwhile, the loss of technical expertise within the U.S. government and the destruction of a well-established aid industry are devastating to the image of the United States and a gift to adversaries. 

What Happens Next 

Given events of the past few days, Rubio’s promise of an organizational review is a chimera. Democrats in Congress may delay some nominations and use the budget and debt ceiling negotiations to minimize the personal hardships caused by the roughshod nature in which USAID was dismantled and to retain bipartisan-supported programs. But given Republican majorities in Congress, a bill authorizing the reorganization will likely pass. The courts may provide some relief for affected employees and unpaid contractors but are unlikely to prevent an executive branch reorganization justified—however weakly—on efficiency grounds. 

Hopefully, private foundations, which have seen their endowments grow dramatically in recent years, as well as USAID’s corporate partners, which have benefited financially from the doors opened through their work with the agency, will fill at least some of the gaps created by budget cuts and loss of institutional expertise. But they too have been shocked by how this evisceration of USAID has unfolded. 

Ultimately, those who care about the United States’ place in the world, whether for geostrategic or values-driven reasons, must better educate a skeptical public about the loss caused by eliminating programs abroad and the agency that has managed them. Perhaps it is time for foreign aid proponents to begin thinking about a future institutional direction for assistance infrastructure that can capture a new spirit of American interest in improving conditions in the world. 

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.