USAID of the United States government is one of the most important organisations in the world, with its activities impacting millions of lives across the globe. The future of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is uncertain as the Trump administration considers merging it with the US Department of State. This potential move could significantly impact international aid, as USAID has been a key player in humanitarian assistance for decades.
Established in 1961 under the Foreign Assistance Act, USAID has played a vital role in global development, providing funding for food security, healthcare, disaster relief, and economic support. However, with the administration pushing for funding cuts and restructuring, many are questioning what will happen to the agency and the critical programs it supports.
The Trump administration has long been sceptical about foreign aid, arguing that it lacks direct benefits for American taxpayers. This scepticism has led to budget cuts and policy shifts that have already affected USAID’s operations.
In 2023, the United States allocated $68 billion to international aid, with USAID receiving over half of that amount—approximately $40 billion. Most of these funds were directed toward Asia, Africa, and Europe, particularly Ukraine. The US remains the largest global donor, outspending countries like the UK. However, with the current administration’s approach, this level of spending may not continue in the coming years.
One of the most significant changes being considered is the merger of USAID with the State Department. This would mean USAID would no longer function as an independent agency but rather as a branch of the department, similar to the UK’s 2020 merger of its international aid department with the Foreign Office.
Supporters of this move argue that it would align international aid more closely with foreign policy goals. However, critics warn that it could weaken USAID’s expertise and reduce its effectiveness. Many fear that such a restructuring could lead to a decline in the quality and scope of aid programs, ultimately harming those who rely on these services the most.
The impact of budget cuts and policy changes is already being felt across various aid programs. USAID plays a crucial role in food security, providing famine relief and running an advanced food shortage prediction system. It funds global healthcare initiatives, including vaccination programs and pandemic prevention.
The agency also supports clean water projects, disaster relief efforts, and economic development programs in struggling regions. However, recent cuts have led to the suspension of multiple aid initiatives. Reports have emerged that some critical programs, such as medical aid and clean water projects, have already been halted.
In Syria, where USAID helps fund security operations for prison guards detaining Islamic State militants, there have been concerns that budget reductions could lead to instability.
The agency’s future is further complicated by political and legal challenges. USAID was created by Congress through the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, making it a legally mandated agency. This means that President Trump cannot simply dissolve it through an executive order.
Any attempt to abolish USAID would likely face strong legal opposition and require congressional approval. The Republican Party holds a slim majority in both houses, but even within the party, there are differing opinions on how foreign aid should be handled. Some lawmakers support funding reductions, while others argue that maintaining a strong presence in international aid is in America’s best interest.
Public opinion on foreign aid has historically leaned toward reducing spending. Polls suggest that many American voters believe too much money is spent on international assistance.
However, international aid organizations and experts argue that cutting USAID’s budget could have long-term consequences, not just for recipient countries but also for the US. Humanitarian aid helps stabilize conflict zones, improve global health, and strengthen diplomatic relations. If the US reduces its commitment, other countries like China may step in to fill the gap, potentially shifting global influence.
A key figure influencing USAID’s future is billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who has become a close advisor to President Trump. Musk has publicly supported drastic spending cuts, including reductions in foreign aid.
His stance has created tensions between USAID and the administration, as agency officials warn that such cuts could severely disrupt global humanitarian efforts. Reports indicate that internal discussions within the government have been contentious, with some officials pushing for continued support for aid programs while others advocate for reductions.
The potential restructuring of USAID raises questions about its long-term viability. If it becomes part of the State Department, its operations may be more closely aligned with foreign policy goals rather than humanitarian needs.
While some argue this could make aid distribution more strategic, others believe it would reduce the agency’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to global crises. The UK’s experience with a similar merger in 2020 serves as an example. While the British government claimed the move would make international spending more efficient, critics argued that it weakened expertise in the aid sector and reduced the UK’s global influence. A similar outcome could be seen in the US if USAID loses its independence.
The legal framework surrounding USAID also complicates any efforts to dissolve or drastically alter the agency. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 mandated the creation of an agency to oversee international aid, and USAID was established through an executive order by President John F. Kennedy.
Later, in 1998, another law reaffirmed its status as an independent executive agency. This means that any major changes to USAID’s structure would likely face legal challenges. While the White House has significant influence over the agency, its power is not absolute, and any restructuring efforts would need congressional support.
In addition to legal and political hurdles, there are also practical concerns about how changes to USAID would affect global humanitarian efforts. International aid workers have described recent funding cuts as a severe disruption, with many programs already feeling the impact.
Critical medical aid shipments have been delayed or cancelled, and clean water initiatives have lost funding. Security concerns have also emerged, particularly in regions where USAID-supported operations help maintain stability. If funding continues to decline, the risk of humanitarian crises worsening in conflict zones could increase.
Despite these challenges, USAID’s role in global development remains significant. The agency operates in over 60 countries, employing approximately 10,000 personnel. Its work in healthcare, food security, and disaster relief has saved countless lives.
Even if the Trump administration succeeds in merging USAID with the State Department, the need for humanitarian aid will not disappear. The question is whether the agency will be able to continue its mission effectively under a new structure.
The future of USAID remains uncertain. The Trump administration’s push for spending cuts and a potential merger with the State Department has raised serious concerns about the agency’s ability to carry out its mission. While the administration argues that reducing foreign aid will benefit American taxpayers, critics warn that such cuts could have far-reaching consequences.
Legal and political obstacles make it unlikely that USAID will be completely abolished, but its role and funding may change significantly. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether USAID can maintain its position as a leading force in global humanitarian aid or if it will be absorbed into the broader foreign policy framework of the US government.
