The Potential Consequences of Shutting Down USAID: A Threat to Counterterrorism Efforts

Introduction: The Controversy Surrounding USAID’s Role in Foreign Aid and Counterterrorism

The recent moves by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have sparked intense debate. USAID, a cornerstone of U.S. foreign aid for decades, has been accused by the White House of mismanaging funds and supporting questionable projects. President Donald Trump tasked DOGE with rooting out waste and fraud in federal spending, and USAID has been singled out as a prime target. However, experts warn that gutting USAID could have far-reaching consequences, particularly in the realm of counterterrorism. By slashing aid programs, the U.S. may inadvertently fuel terrorism in volatile regions, undermining decades of efforts to stabilize fragile states and address the root causes of extremism.

Richard Betts: How Aid Cuts Could Boost Terror Recruitment

Richard K. Betts, a professor at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies and a former CIA adviser, argues that cutting health and food programs could have devastating consequences. These programs, though sometimes criticized for inefficiency, are critical to saving lives and improving livelihoods in impoverished regions. When such programs are eliminated, it not only causes suffering but also creates resentment among affected populations. Terrorist groups, Betts warns, are adept at exploiting such grievances. They use propaganda to portray the U.S. as indifferent to the suffering of ordinary people, which can bolster their recruitment efforts. Betts suggests that even a moderate reduction in aid could have a significant impact on terrorist recruitment, as embittered populations become more susceptible to extremist ideologies.

James Forest: The Risk of Losing Intelligence and Cooperation

James J.F. Forest, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and an expert on terrorism, highlights another critical dimension of the issue: the loss of intelligence and cooperation from foreign partners. Counterterrorism efforts rely heavily on the willingness of local populations and governments to share intelligence, monitor suspicious activities, and address the root causes of extremism. USAID plays a vital role in building long-term relationships with these partners, fostering trust and collaboration. When aid is withdrawn, Forest warns, the U.S. risks alienating these allies. Without their cooperation, it becomes far more challenging to identify and disrupt terrorist networks. Forest emphasizes that counterterrorism is not just about military action but also about winning the hearts and minds of people in vulnerable regions. Cutting aid undermines this strategy and leaves the U.S. less equipped to combat terrorism.

Colin Clarke: The Exploitation of USAID Cuts by Terrorist Groups

Colin P. Clarke, director of research at The Soufan Group, offers a stark warning: the decision to defund USAID is myopic and will likely embolden terrorist organizations. USAID’s programs in fragile states and conflict zones focus on economic development and good governance, addressing the very issues that terrorist groups exploit to recruit members. By cutting these programs, the U.S. is effectively allowing conditions like poverty, inequality, and lack of justice to fester. Clarke points to Islamic State (ISIS) franchises as particularly poised to capitalize on these cuts. In regions like West Africa and Southeast Asia, where ISIS has established a presence, the withdrawal of aid will create power vacuums and exacerbate grievances. Clarke cautions that the U.S. cannot afford to view these challenges as "someone else’s problem." The 9/11 attacks, planned from a failed state, serve as a stark reminder that threats in distant lands can have global repercussions.

The Broader Implications: A Short-Sighted Approach to National Security

The fallout from DOGE’s actions extends beyond immediate counterterrorism concerns. USAID’s work is integral to U.S. soft power, helping to promote American values and stabilize regions that are critical to global security. By dismantling USAID, the U.S. risks ceding influence to other powers, such as China and Russia, which are increasingly active in Africa and the Middle East. Moreover, the cutbacks undermine the U.S. role as a global leader in humanitarian assistance, a position that has historically bolstered its moral authority. While the Trump administration may see these cuts as a cost-saving measure, the long-term costs to national security and global stability could far outweigh any short-term savings.

Conclusion: The Urgent Need for a Balanced Approach

The shuttering of USAID is a decision that could have profound and far-reaching consequences. Experts like Betts, Forest, and Clarke all agree that the cuts to USAID’s programs could fuel terrorism by creating resentment, undermining intelligence cooperation, and allowing extremist groups to exploit vulnerable populations. While addressing waste and fraud in federal spending is a legitimate concern, it cannot come at the expense of critical programs that support global stability and counterterrorism efforts. The U.S. must find a balanced approach, one that ensures accountability while continuing to invest in the kinds of initiatives that prevent the spread of extremism. The stakes are high, and the consequences of failure could be catastrophic.