The closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), recently announced by Elon Musk, an ally of Donald Trump, is a fully justifiable decision given the shortcomings observed in the administration of international aid by this entity.
Since its establishment in 1961, USAID has played a key role in distributing billions of dollars to humanitarian and development programs worldwide, but its effectiveness and impact now warrant serious reconsideration.
USAID, an organization created by the U.S. Congress under President John F. Kennedy, manages a budget of over $40 billion and employs an estimated 10,000 staff, the majority of whom are stationed abroad.
However, despite its vast resources, USAID has not always demonstrated a genuine capacity to address the priorities of recipient countries effectively, often accused of promoting geopolitical or ideological agendas at the expense of the real needs of local populations.
By suspending foreign aid in 2017 for reassessment, Donald Trump aimed to eliminate questionable or overly politicized programs, such as those promoting diversity, abortion, or other initiatives unrelated to direct humanitarian objectives.
The goal was clear: to redirect aid so that it would serve U.S. strategic interests while addressing the immediate needs of populations. Some exceptions were made for food aid and essential healthcare, but a thorough review of USAID was necessary to avoid waste and ensure targeted, transparent support.
Criticism from humanitarian organizations, who refer to a « war on development, » overlooks a key aspect: the effectiveness of aid. While flagship USAID programs like PEPFAR for HIV/AIDS prevention benefit millions, the agency’s overall record remains mixed. Many of its programs have shown significant flaws, particularly in governance, corruption, and fostering dependency on external aid rather than promoting sustainable local solutions.
Moreover, in countries like Uganda or Cambodia, where U.S. aid has been poorly directed or ineffective, the closure of USAID-funded programs highlights the need for a more targeted and coordinated approach.
In 2023, the ten countries that received the most aid were Ukraine, Ethiopia, Jordan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Syria, according to CRS.
USAID has long acted as a centralized channel for foreign funds, but it has often ignored local realities, deploying solutions that, rather than strengthening local capacities, have sometimes contributed to instability and dependence.
Therefore, reducing or even closing poorly designed and mismanaged programs is a logical decision. It would free up resources to support more relevant initiatives tailored to the specific needs of the countries involved while ensuring better management of public funds.
The closure of USAID could also pave the way for reforms in international aid, placing beneficiary countries at the center of decision-making processes and encouraging them to become the main actors in their own development.