America's Disastrous Foreign Aid Withdrawal

Last month, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi made his first trip of 2025 a visit to the African continent, as has been Beijing’s practice for decades. His message? China values its relationships in Africa, is a consistent and reliable partner, and aims to advance shared development and prosperity.  

Also last month, the Trump administration began its assault on U.S. foreign assistance, mandating that spending and projects stop, and set about dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Our message to Africa? The United States is unreliable, disinterested, and increasingly incompetent, as USAID’s capacity to even process waivers for life-saving assistance is hollowed out by the administration’s demand that USAID staff stop working.  

This own goal is nonsensical. The image being painted of USAID as an unaccountable, rogue agency frittering away taxpayer resources doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. Year after year, Congress has had the same oversight authorities over USAID that it has over the rest of the executive branch. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill is hardly a blank check—most U.S. assistance is earmarked for very specific purposes, by the elected representatives of the American people in the House and Senate. From notification and reporting requirements, on-demand briefings, oversight hearings, and traveling Congressional delegations getting a look at USAID activities in the field, there are multiple accountability mechanisms in place.   

The problem for the United States is not just the loss of goodwill, or the particularly unfavorable comparisons to our geopolitical rivals, who seek African support for their preferred global norms and African minerals for their tech industries. The United States invests in development for concrete reasons beyond the competition for influence. Better infectious disease management systems abroad make it less likely that terrifying infectious diseases, like Ebola, will become a problem at home. Job-creating economic growth can staunch overwhelming migratory flows and stem violent extremism. Development can give countries emerging from conflicts that open the door to global bad actors—from Russian mercenaries to Iranian arms merchants—a reason to keep the peace. There’s a reason U.S. defense leaders have consistently supported federal spending on diplomacy and development. The United States cannot advance its interests by military means alone. 

Not so fast, some will say. This is simply a review and reorganization, not a total abandonment of any development agenda. If so, it’s hard to think of a more costly, disruptive way to go about reform. The world doesn’t stop for the United States’ bureaucratic restructuring. While we have inexplicably chosen to toss out a third of our foreign policy toolbox, life goes on, leaving the United States wobbling on a stool with only two legs. Consider the recent seizure of territory in the Democratic Republic of Congo by Rwandan-backed forces. The last time this force took hold of the city of Goma, Rwanda and its proxies backed down when donors threatened to cut off funds to Kigali. But today, we’ve already frozen that assistance as part of an ill-informed attempt to dismantle the government. U.S. leverage is gone, because we have chosen to diminish our own influence.   

Perhaps in time, a new “regular order” will emerge in U.S. foreign assistance. But without people who know what they are doing, the result is likely to be more waste, not less. Unexpectedly, the White House’s enthusiasm for hollowing out the federal workforce and installing loyalists in place of professionals makes this administration a kindred spirit of South Africa’s African National Congress, with its disastrous enthusiasm for “cadre deployment.” As that example shows, staffing government with loyalists who serve a political movement, not the public at large, is a recipe for corruption and decay.