Former USAID official warns China is already looking to fill void left by paused programs

A Shift in Global Influence: The Pause on USAID Funding and China’s Rising Role

The Trump administration’s decision to pause funding for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has sparked concerns about a potential power vacuum, which China is quickly attempting to fill. This shift in global aid dynamics could have far-reaching consequences, particularly in regions where USAID programs have been canceled or scaled back. A former USAID official, speaking anonymously to Fox News Digital, highlighted that while the U.S. has stepped back, China has “immediately” stepped in. This pattern is evident in countries like Nepal, Cambodia, and Papua New Guinea, where China is positioning itself as a key partner to continue the work previously supported by USAID.

China’s move to expand its influence is not subtle. In Cambodia, for instance, Beijing has increased its funding to the Cambodian Mine Action Center (CMAC), which is the country’s largest demining organization. According to Reuters, China pledged $4.4 million to CMAC, more than double the $2 million the U.S. provided last year. Similarly, in Nepal, China is reportedly ramping up its financial support across various sectors, further solidifying its presence in the region. This rapid response underscores China’s strategic intent to capitalize on the U.S.’s withdrawal from these initiatives.

The former USAID official emphasized that the withdrawal of these programs undermines the U.S.’s reputation as a reliable partner. “By removing these programs, it adds one more reason for many of these partners to now not see the United States as a partner who shares their priorities of investing in the people of their countries,” the official said. This sentiment reflects a broader concern that the U.S. is ceding its role as a global leader in development and humanitarian efforts, leaving an opening for China to fill.

The Plight of Women and Girls: A Vulnerable Population

One of the most vulnerable populations impacted by the funding freeze is women and girls. During Donald Trump’s first term, his daughter Ivanka Trump played a pivotal role in launching the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (W-GDP), a program aimed at advancing women’s economic empowerment. However, the pause on USAID funding has raised fears about the future of such initiatives.

Lilian Achom, a Ugandan woman who benefited from USAID’s W-GDP Fund programming, expressed her concerns about the potential consequences of the funding freeze. Achom, who met Ivanka Trump during the launch of the W-GDP initiative, recalled being inspired by her commitment to women’s empowerment and digital inclusion. “I saw in her someone who was really, really interested in women’s empowerment, economic development, and digital inclusion for women around the world,” Achom said. However, she now fears for the women and children in northern Uganda who are struggling with poverty and HIV/AIDS. “Mr. Trump needs to think about the underprivileged deep down in northern Uganda,” Achom implored. “The underprivileged, the children, the women who are currently suffering.”

The former USAID official echoed these concerns, stating that the funding freeze is “impacting potentially every aspect of the lives of women and girls who were benefiting from USAID programs.” While China is stepping in to fill some of the gaps left by the U.S., it remains unclear whether Beijing will prioritize programs focused on women’s empowerment.

The Ripple Effects of USAID Funding Freeze

The impact of the USAID funding freeze extends far beyond individual countries or regions. It has significant implications for global health, education, and economic development initiatives. In many countries, USAID programs were a critical source of funding for projects aimed at improving the quality of life for marginalized communities. The sudden withdrawal of this support has left many organizations scrambling to find alternative sources of funding.

For example, in Cambodia, the loss of USAID funding has put the country’s demining efforts at risk. Landmines and unexploded ordnance remain a serious threat in Cambodia, and the work of organizations like CMAC is crucial to saving lives and restoring land for agricultural use. By stepping in with increased funding, China is not only addressing a humanitarian need but also positioning itself as a key player in Cambodia’s development.

Similarly, in Nepal, the funding freeze has raised concerns about the continuity of critical development programs. While China is increasing its financial support, the question remains whether this aid will be as transparent or as closely aligned with the needs of local communities as USAID’s efforts.

The White House Perspective: Criticism of USAID Spending

The White House has defended its decision to pause USAID funding by accusing the agency of supporting “the ridiculous—and, in many cases, malicious—pet projects of entrenched bureaucrats.” It highlighted several examples of what it considers wasteful spending, including $2.5 million for electric vehicles in Vietnam, $1.5 million to promote diversity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces, and $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt.

While these criticisms have sparked debate about the effectiveness and efficiency of USAID programs, many advocates argue that the agency’s work is vital to addressing global challenges and promoting U.S. interests abroad. The former USAID official, for instance, emphasized that the funding freeze is not just a humanitarian issue but also a strategic one. By pulling back from these investments, the U.S. risks ceding ground to China and other competitors who are eager to expand their influence.

A Humanitarian and Strategic Crossroads

The pause on USAID funding has placed the U.S. at a critical juncture, with significant implications for its role in global development and its ability to counter China’s growing influence. While the White House’s concerns about wasteful spending are valid, the abrupt withdrawal of funding has left many vulnerable populations at risk and created opportunities for China to step in.

The situation in Uganda, where women like Lilian Achom are struggling to access the support they need, underscores the human cost of this decision. The W-GDP initiative and other USAID programs were not just about economic empowerment; they were about giving women and girls the tools they needed to build better lives for themselves and their families. By pulling back from these efforts, the U.S. is not only harming its reputation as a global leader but also leaving behind those who need its support the most.

As the U.S. grapples with the complexities of its foreign aid strategy, one thing is clear: the pause on USAID funding is not just a policy decision—it is a choice with real-world consequences. The question now is whether the U.S. will find a way to balance its concerns about efficiency and accountability with its commitment to ensuring that its aid reaches those who need it most.