'America First Foreign Assistance' and the Rebirth of USAID
USAID will be folded into the State Department, with a new agency taking its place, “America First Foreign Assistance.”
Featured contributor Prof. Josef Mahoney joined CGTN Radio "World Today" to discuss the US closing the United States Agency For International Development, #usaid.
USAID has operated for 60+ years. How do you evaluate the Agency and the controversies surrounding it?
In 1994, I received some USAID funding for research related to my first master’s degree thesis, conducted at the WHO-supported cholera hospital in Dhaka, Bangladesh, evaluating a nutrition rehabilitation program for severely malnourished children.
In the past, USAID also gave millions to #china, including supporting issues like #climatechange. In 2011, however, such support was politicized in the US as “feeding the dragon,” and curtailed.
While USAID's humanitarian and development work has long been praised, it’s also attracted criticism for excessive overhead, failed projects, and weak accountability. It's also been credibly accused of trying to destabilize foreign governments, manipulate elections, and foster color revolutions, all in the name of democracy.
Some argue it helped produce radical jihadist textbooks to support the rise of the #taliban as an insurgency against Soviet forces in #afghanistan, and decades later squandered millions there on a poorly positioned power plant during the US occupation.
Trump justifies the agency’s dismantling as part of broader efforts to reduce the deficit, but its budget is quite small. What are his real motivations?
Musk, Trump’s former right-hand and DOGE head, described USAID as a “criminal organization” that “needs to die,” indicating it was wasteful, unaffordable, and part of a partisan deep state supporting left-wing causes around the world. Trump seemingly agreed.
The US has a debt problem. It's also true that Trump proposed a record-breaking, trillion dollar defense budget, indicating he prefers the stick over the carrot in foreign policy.
Further, USAID was useful previously as a veneer to help mask US policies reflecting self-interest at others' expense. Trump doesn’t need a veneer. He’s not trying to build coalitions based on shared values or humanitarian support. He prefers a more direct style of manipulation.
USAID will be folded into the State Department, with a new agency taking its place, “America First Foreign Assistance.” What does this signal?
Some previous USAID functions likely will be rebranded and advanced hand-in-hand with MAGA ideology.
Given Trump’s approach to global well-being, including his decisions to again abandon WHO and the Paris Agreement, and his 2026 budget, showing reductions or eliminations of US funding to the UN and several of its affiliated organizations, US assistance will be highly selective, likely with less emphasis on humanitarian support than advancing the Trump’s international agenda.
We might also see reversals of fortune. For example, USAID previously provided some assistance to Palestinians but none for Israel. Perhaps that will be inverted, given the privileged role Israel plays in Trump’s foreign policy.
https://radio.cgtn.com/podcast/column/ezfm/World-Today/46
Comment 1:
Both Obama and Bush made rare public criticisms of the move, while many staff were reportedly dismissed via mass emails and had their accounts abruptly blocked. Critics have called this an act of administrative violence—yet many still support Trump’s approach. What does this episode reveal about the current polarization and deepening political divides within the United States?
A majority of US voters supported Trump in the last election, and he was rather clear he would target USAID and other government agencies with major cuts. Many believe the country’s deficit spending and massive debt is unsustainable. They believe that federal spending must be cut.
Conversely, Bush and Obama want people to believe their administrations were good, did good deeds, and these were done in part by USAID. I would suggest that most American voters have turned the page, for better or worse. While some will decry these cuts as a growing inhumanity in Washington, or more cynically as a foolish abandonment of a relatively cheap tool for advancing US foreign policy, I would not describe these developments are part of a broader polarization.
Comment 2:
However, a significant number of Americans are concerned these cuts will create greater risks globally that could ultimately undermine US interests and well-being at home and abroad, and as many as 80% believe the US should help less fortunate countries, although there’s broad disagreement whether this should be done through private, non-profit efforts, or by the US government directly. At the same time, more are becoming aware of how little is actually spent, and some wonder why this is such a big deal. This includes those who oppose cutting and those who say it matters little either way.