Implications of Trump’s Plan to Close the U.S. Agency for International Development

On February 2, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced plans to close the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). He approved the shutdown based on a proposal from Elon Musk, whom he tasked with cutting federal spending. Trump stated that the agency “must be closed” due to its management by “reckless extremists.” This announcement comes at a time when the world faces significant turmoil due to climate change and escalating humanitarian crises; USAID is considered the largest humanitarian aid donor globally, allocating approximately $72 billion in the 2023 fiscal year to various areas including women’s health in conflict zones, clean water provision, energy security, and anti-corruption efforts.

Trump has entrusted Musk to oversee the agency’s closure project while discussions are underway about integrating it into the State Department to reduce the workforce. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is currently acting as the agency’s head, conducting a review of its operations.

Key Reasons

Several reasons underpin President Trump’s decision to eliminate USAID, the most prominent of which include:

Adoption of “America First” Policy: Trump’s decision to close USAID aligns with his “America First” policy, which focuses on reducing government spending on foreign aid. Trump contends that spending on foreign assistance does not provide real value to American taxpayers, reflecting his desire to redirect financial resources toward domestic priorities. The closure decision comes as Trump aims to enhance federal government efficiency, ensuring that every dollar spent abroad aligns with U.S. interests, necessitating a comprehensive review of U.S. foreign aid programs. Proponents of closing the agency argue that the move represents a necessary correction for an agency perceived to suffer from excessive bureaucracy and political tendencies that affect its effectiveness.

Reduction of U.S. Government Spending: Since his first day in the White House, Trump has sought to dismantle or restructure federal agencies deemed ineffective or misaligned with his administration’s goals. After taking office, he imposed a 90-day freeze on foreign aid, leading to the suspension of many USAID programs providing vital humanitarian assistance worldwide, resulting in the layoffs of thousands of USAID employees. This sharp decline in employment and operational capacity reflects a broader strategy to align federal spending with Trump’s vision of governmental efficiency, heavily influenced by advisors like Musk, who criticized the agency as a waste of taxpayer funds and called for its disbandment.

Trump’s Skepticism Towards USAID Funding Areas: Elon Musk claimed that the agency is involved in funding biological weapons research, including projects related to COVID-19, raising concerns for Trump and his supporters regarding taxpayer money allocation. The USAID Office of the Inspector General has highlighted ongoing challenges in accountability and transparency within the programs funded by the agency. Reports indicate systemic failures in oversight, particularly concerning partnerships with United Nations agencies and other international organizations, raising alarms about potential fraud and misuse of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Concerns surrounding USAID funding have become a focal point of political debate, especially among Trump supporters advocating for stricter oversight and reevaluation of international aid expenditures.

Trump’s View of Foreign Aid as Straining Washington’s Relations: Trump has promoted a negative narrative regarding USAID’s role and U.S. aid in general. In the executive order he signed after arriving at the White House, freezing foreign developmental assistance for 90 days, he stated that aid “does not align with American interests and often contradicts American values.” He added that such assistance “contributes to global instability by promoting ideas in foreign countries that directly undermine harmonious and stable internal and external relations among nations.”

Multiple Consequences

President Trump’s decision to close USAID will have a range of internal and external implications for the United States, the most significant of which include:

Conflict Between the President and Congress: The legal complexities surrounding the decision to eliminate USAID are considerable. Established under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and solidified as an independent agency in 1998, any attempt to dismantle it could face substantial legal challenges and require congressional approval. Legal experts assert that any effort to abolish USAID without Congress’s consent would be unconstitutional. The Trump administration is likely to encounter significant legal hurdles if it pursues such a path. Given the slim Republican majority in both houses of Congress, any legislation aimed at dissolving or integrating USAID into the State Department will face substantial obstacles, as lawmakers from both parties have expressed strong opposition to the agency’s closure, emphasizing that any changes must adhere to the legal foundations established by the legislative branch.

Impact on U.S. Global Influence: The decision to close USAID raises concerns about the potential consequences for U.S. influence worldwide. Analysts warn that halting the agency’s operations could diminish American soft power in critical regions such as Africa, South America, and Asia, where the agency has historically provided vital support in areas like healthcare and disaster relief. This could jeopardize U.S. strategic interests abroad, reduce its role as a leader in global development initiatives, and undermine efforts to promote stability and development in regions like Africa, South America, and Asia.

Decline in Global Humanitarian Efforts: As USAID is a primary provider of foreign assistance, its dismantling could lead to a significant decrease in essential humanitarian services, particularly in areas already facing crises. The agency plays a crucial role in providing food, healthcare, and support to combat infectious diseases such as polio and cholera. The loss of this support could exacerbate existing health crises and increase mortality rates among vulnerable populations. With millions relying on USAID-funded programs for healthcare, education, and food security, a sudden halt to these services could heighten instability, migration pressures, and humanitarian disasters.

China’s Move to Fill the Void Left by the Agency’s Closure: Closing USAID is expected to create a vacuum that other countries, especially China, may exploit to expand their influence in regions traditionally impacted by the United States. In the absence of American support, China and Russia may find opportunities to reinforce their presence in these areas by providing alternative aid or investments. The suspension of U.S. foreign aid presents opportunities for China, particularly through its “Belt and Road Initiative,” which has invested over a trillion dollars in infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America since 2013. This initiative not only enhances China’s economic influence but also positions it as a more reliable partner compared to the U.S., especially in areas where American assistance has historically dominated.

Dilemma of Reduced U.S. Efforts in Addressing Global Health Crises: The decrease in U.S. efforts to tackle global health crises alongside the closure of USAID poses significant risks, not only to international stability but also to the safety and security of American citizens. The interconnectedness of health and global security means that when countries face health crises—such as infectious disease outbreaks—the repercussions can transcend borders, leading to potential threats within the United States. For instance, the spread of diseases like Ebola and COVID-19 highlighted how swiftly pathogens can travel globally, facilitated by international travel and trade. With reduced aid efforts, the capacity of weak nations to manage such diseases diminishes, increasing the likelihood of uncontrolled disease spread reaching U.S. territory.

Potential Economic Repercussions for the United States: Closing the agency could have profound economic implications for the United States. Foreign aid is often viewed as a strategic investment that not only meets humanitarian needs but also fosters stability in areas critical to U.S. interests. By downsizing this aid, the U.S. risks destabilizing economies in developing countries, potentially leading to increased migration pressures and regional conflicts that may ultimately require more costly military interventions or disaster relief efforts in the future. Moreover, foreign aid plays a vital role in creating new markets for American goods and services. Investments in infrastructure, healthcare, and education abroad can lead to stronger economies capable of engaging in trade with the United States. Reducing aid may constrain these opportunities, limiting American companies’ access to emerging markets and diminishing growth potential. As other countries like China and Russia seek to fill the void left by reduced U.S. engagement, American businesses may find themselves in a less favorable competitive position in these new markets, further impacting the U.S. economy.

Crossing Borders

In conclusion, President Trump’s decision to close the U.S. Agency for International Development marks a significant departure from long-standing norms of American foreign policy. The immediate repercussions of this decision could lead to potential humanitarian crises resulting from the cessation of aid programs, increasing vulnerability for populations reliant on U.S. assistance. As global power dynamics shift and new challenges emerge, the effects of this decision are likely to resonate beyond U.S. borders, impacting its relationships with both allies and adversaries.