3 million lives or $8 billion? 5,341 humanitarian programs or $8 billion? 20,000 jobs or $8 billion? The Trump administration chose $8 billion when they shut down USAID.
Rockville is a diverse community; many of us have family connections ranging from Central America to Southeast Asia. Despite our global ties, we rarely engage with the field of foreign policy. This isolation is dangerous, especially when our government makes decisions that affect millions of people worldwide, including fellow citizens in the US.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was the primary global foreign aid and development agency. It operated in over 100 countries since its founding in 1961, implementing programs covering global health, democracy building and disaster and humanitarian relief.
As part of an initiative to reduce government spending and focus on domestic policies, the Trump administration paused and then permanently dissolved USAID, resulting in an 83% reduction in development aid and the merging of the remaining programs with the State Department.
This was a mistake. The agency should not have been shut down; it should have been reformed. USAID’s closure is a disaster that destabilizes US foreign policy objectives, creates a global vacuum for competitors, and undermines Congressional authority.
The shutdown triggered two immediate crises: destabilized long-term US foreign policy objectives and a geopolitical vacuum.
The dismantling of USAID is a direct cause of the worsening humanitarian crisis. According to a 2025 Oxfam report, the 83% aid reduction cuts off essential services for an estimated 95 million people worldwide. The destruction of critical global health programs has reversed decades of progress in preventing and treating diseases like HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. The programs that were shut down prevented an estimated 3 million deaths annually.
“In areas where USAID was more involved in services, program freezes led to immediate impacts on patients,” says Ben Zinner, the former Director of the Office of Public Health and Education, USAID/Cambodia. “For instance, procurement of diagnostic tests for malaria and tuberculosis was interrupted, and thousands of community health workers were laid off overnight, leading to fewer people being screened and treated.”
But the long-term consequences go beyond humanitarian loss, impacting global stability itself. The abrupt cut to USAID’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance programs is significant because democratic institutions are crucial to a functioning society. Development expert Nadia Shah argues that the shutdown will trigger democratic backsliding in more countries, leading to greater repression, political consolidation, and instability that can cause conflict. The US government’s support for democracy was historically fueled by the Democratic Peace Theory, a bedrock of Cold War policy.
This is not a strategic retreat to save money; it is a moral abandonment that jeopardizes the lives of millions of people, removing essential services and weakening global crisis response capacity.
The second crisis is geopolitical. USAID was an essential tool of American soft power, building influence and diplomatic leverage without military deployment. The closure creates a vacuum that authoritarian competitors are quickly filling.
Adversaries like China and Russia are actively exploiting this void, with China strengthening its Belt and Road dominance, its global infrastructure and economic development strategy, and shifting the balance in regions like Africa and the Pacific. This retreat is reducing the US’s ability to lead in global development policy. Additionally, the shutdown bypassed Congressional authority, violating the separation of powers, as Congress controlled USAID’s budget.
USAID projects, especially in countries less welcoming of the US democracy or human rights agenda, served as an incentive for diplomatic relations. Nadia Shah explains that successful USAID-led projects with “compelling” stories made it easier for the US government to have difficult diplomatic discussions, allowing high-ranking Americans to say, “Look at this new hospital we just built for your citizens… Or look at this new school we just funded.”
Despite its proven value, USAID was subject to criticism.
Recent critics of USAID say that it was a wasteful organization that had to be cut to reduce federal spending. However, the fiscal savings as a result of the shutdown were negligible. Pew Research Center found that as of Feb. 6, 2025, USAID’s budget accounted for less than 1% of the total federal budget. The $8 billion saved is a minuscule amount compared to the $34 trillion national debt, meaning the claims of significant savings are overstated.
While shortcomings existed, former USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah noted that reform and modernization were the proper responses, not dissolution.
Nadia Shah offers an improvement for a successful, reformed agency. She said, “I would elevate the position of head of that agency to be a cabinet-level position (Secretary of International Development).”
This structural change would ensure its success by allowing the US government to use development strategically, aligning its agenda with the cabinet’s priorities and ensuring direct funding. This would essentially “cut out the middle man” of the State Department, where Shah notes there was a duplication of efforts with less-skilled program managers.
The closure was a destructive and impulsive action of isolationism that cost lives, weakened US foreign policy, and empowered our adversaries, all for a mere $8 billion. We need to reject this idea of isolationism and restore America’s commitment to development.
