The Impact of Trump’s Campaign on USAID and the Future of Aid

The Demolition of USAID and Its Fallout

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), once celebrated as the “world’s largest donor,” has been severely weakened by President Donald Trump’s aggressive campaign against it. This move has left aid workers and organizations scrambling to preserve international development aid and humanitarian response systems. The consequences of Trump’s actions, along with similar decisions by other countries like the United Kingdom to reduce aid, have sparked widespread concern. Many fear that these cuts will have devastating effects on global welfare and security, particularly for the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Luca Crudeli, a development professional with nearly two decades of experience, expressed the sentiment of many in the field when he wrote about the “moral center” of their work slipping away. He described the growing Unease among aid workers that the humanistic soul of development is being lost in a sea of contracts and strategic metrics. However, for many in the Global South, the idea of “development” having a humanistic soul is inherently contradictory. While many individuals working in this field are genuinely committed to improving global welfare, the broader structure of the aid industry has long been entangled with geopolitical power and inequality.

The Darker Reality of the Aid Industry

Critics argue that the soul of “development” has never been as humanistic as its proponents claim. In reality, the aid industry has historically functioned as a tool for geopolitical control, perpetuating rather than challenging global inequality and resource extraction. The collapse of USAID has brought this harsh reality to light, with some in the industry openly acknowledging that aid often serves as a means to advance the interests of donor countries.

For instance, a statement by InterAction, an umbrella organization for U.S.-based humanitarian and development groups, revealed the dual nature of aid work. Before quickly revising its language, the statement acknowledged that these organizations “work tirelessly to save lives and advance U.S. interests globally.” It also warned that the dismantling of USAID would harm “programs that support America’s global leadership” and allow adversaries like China to fill the power vacuum. Such candid admissions highlight the extent to which aid is intertwined with geopolitical agendas, undermining its humanitarian image.

Aid workers from the Global South, who have long been skeptical of the aid industry’s motives, have expressed a sense of vindication in the wake of these revelations. Marina Kobzeva, a veteran aid worker, noted that while her colleagues from the Global North dismissed the statement as “poor wording” or an “honest mistake,” those from the Global South saw it as a long-overdue acknowledgment of the industry’s true priorities.

The Colonial Roots of Humanitarianism

The interconnectedness of aid and geopolitics is not a recent phenomenon but has deep historical roots. Western humanitarianism has been tied to colonialism since its inception. The 1884-1885 Berlin Conference, which divided Africa among European powers, is a stark example of how humanitarian rhetoric was used to justify colonial exploitation. Similarly, early humanitarian organizations, which emerged in the aftermath of World War II, often served to bolster imperial domination in the Global South, framing their work as a “civilizing mission.”

The aid industry inherited this colonial legacy, using its do-gooder image to mask the extractive nature of global systems. Rather than challenging the structural inequalities that drive poverty and inequality, aid organizations often focus on alleviating the symptoms, effectively legitimizing the systems that produce these inequalities. This symbiotic relationship between aid and exploitation has allowed the global order to remain largely unchanged, with racialized hierarchies and deep inequalities persisting despite decades of aid efforts.

The Limited Impact of Foreign Aid

The effectiveness of foreign aid in promoting development and improving human welfare has long been questionable. A 1997 study by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office found that aid plays, at best, a marginal role in economic development and can even hinder progress depending on the context and conditions in which it is applied. Despite the proliferation of aid agencies, global inequality remains entrenched, and the racialized power dynamics between the Global North and South have seen little change.

This raises the question: Is aid truly a force for good, or does it simply serve as a band-aid on systemic wounds while perpetuating cycles of dependency? For many in the Global South, the answer is clear. Heba Aly, former CEO of The New Humanitarian, noted that some activists from the Global South are less concerned about aid cuts than donors are. In fact, they see this as an opportunity for their leaders to take greater responsibility and reduce reliance on external assistance.

The End of Aid and the Need for Structural Change

The decline of Western aid, while undeniably tragic for the millions who depend on it, also presents an opportunity to rethink the global system. As Aly puts it, “If this is the beginning of the end of aid, we should focus on structural transformation.” This entails reforming global trade and financial systems that currently prioritize the interests of wealthy nations at the expense of the poor.

The end of aid should also mean the end of the ideology of “development,” which assumes that the Global North’s model of prosperity is one worth emulating. This model, built on the exploitation of resources and labor from the Global South, has not only perpetuated inequality but also contributed to environmental destruction. Instead, we need to envision a world where solidarity and justice replace charity as the foundation of global relations.

Moving Toward a More Equitable Future

While the hollowing-out of Western aid will undoubtedly cause suffering in the short term, it also opens the door to building a more equitable world. This requires addressing the root causes of inequality and moving away from systems that prioritize extraction and control over human welfare. It demands a radical transformation of the global order, one that prioritizes justice and solidarity over charity and geopolitical gamesmanship.

As the aid industry faces its potential demise, the world has a chance to reimagine what humanistic development could truly look like—one that is not tied to the interests of powerful nations but rooted in the principles of equality, justice, and shared humanity. While this process will be difficult and painful, it is only through such a transformation that we can hope to create a world where aid is no longer necessary because the structures of inequality have been dismantled.