# By Prem Sagar Poudel - - - -
The Trump administration’s recent decision to significantly downsize the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has sparked widespread international concern. As one of the most influential foreign aid institutions globally, USAID’s restructuring could have profound consequences on humanitarian aid, geopolitical stability, and international development efforts. This article provides a comprehensive examination of the scale of downsizing, the rationale behind it, and its far-reaching impact on global programs and policies.
Scale of Downsizing
Reduction in Workforce:
The Trump administration has announced a dramatic reduction in USAID personnel, retaining only 294 employees out of the agency’s approximately 10,000-strong workforce. This means that over 5,000 civil servants and contractors will lose their jobs, while another 5,000 locally employed staff face an uncertain future. This reduction is unprecedented in USAID’s history and is expected to cripple its ability to operate effectively in numerous countries.
Purpose Behind the Downsizing
Criticism of Spending:
President Donald Trump, supported by Elon Musk, who heads the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has accused USAID of wasteful spending. The administration argues that the agency has funded projects that do not align with U.S. national interests, including initiatives supporting LGBTQI+ rights abroad. Some Republican lawmakers have also criticized USAID’s involvement in climate change programs and gender equality projects in conservative regions.
A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report revealed that USAID spent over $50 billion in the last fiscal year, with some funds going to programs that Trump and his allies deem unnecessary. One of the main arguments behind this downsizing is the belief that these funds should be redirected toward domestic infrastructure and security instead of foreign assistance.
Impact on Programs
Global Health and Humanitarian Assistance:
While the administration has stated that it will prioritize humanitarian assistance and global health, the reality of this abrupt downsizing suggests otherwise. Many crucial projects have already been suspended or terminated, including:
Global Health Initiatives: Efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis in Africa and Asia face severe funding shortages.
Educational Programs: The suspension of scholarships and development grants for students in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.
Infrastructure Development: Road and sanitation projects in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia have been halted, affecting millions of people.
Specific Program Suspensions
The freezing of foreign aid has led to a halt in multiple humanitarian projects. Among the most critical affected programs are:
Landmine clearing operations in Asia and Africa, leading to heightened risks for civilians in Cambodia, Laos, and Angola.
Support for Ukrainian war veterans, which included medical assistance and rehabilitation programs for those injured in the ongoing conflict with Russia.
Rohingya refugee assistance, where USAID had been a major contributor to food, shelter, and medical aid for those displaced from Myanmar.
Medical supply disruptions, particularly in African nations, where USAID played a pivotal role in distributing vaccines and life-saving drugs for diseases like Ebola and mpox.
Anti-drug trafficking operations, especially in Colombia and Mexico, have been severely weakened, potentially leading to an increase in illegal drug trade and cartel activities.
Administrative Actions
Leadership Changes:
With the abrupt removal of former USAID administrators, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has taken over as acting administrator. Under his leadership, USAID has undergone a dramatic transformation, including:
Placing nearly all staff on administrative leave.
Recalling hundreds of overseas personnel, leaving critical projects without oversight.
Shutting down multiple USAID regional offices.
Legal Challenges:
The downsizing of USAID has led to multiple lawsuits from federal workers’ unions and advocacy groups. Critics argue that the dismantling of USAID violates constitutional provisions and federal laws protecting government employees.
A group of Democratic lawmakers, led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, has filed a formal complaint against the administration, accusing it of undermining national security and global stability by withdrawing critical aid.
President’s Commitment
Public Statements:
President Trump has remained vocal about his disdain for USAID, labeling its leadership as “radical lunatics” who misuse taxpayer money. He has defended the cuts, stating:
“The U.S. should not be the world’s welfare provider. We have to focus on America first.”
Despite backlash from international allies and humanitarian organizations, Trump remains committed to reducing USAID’s influence, reinforcing his administration’s "America First" policy.
Criticism and Concerns
Domestic and International Backlash:
The United Nations, European Union, and several international NGOs have expressed serious concerns over the USAID downsizing. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that disruptions in medical aid could lead to a public health crisis in vulnerable regions.
Furthermore, foreign leaders from Africa, Asia, and Latin America have condemned the U.S. government for abruptly cutting funds that have long been essential for poverty alleviation, conflict prevention, and economic development.
Humanitarian Impact
The withdrawal of aid is expected to cause::
Increased mortality rates due to shortages of vaccines, medical supplies, and emergency food aid.
Rising instability in developing nations where USAID-funded projects provided employment and essential services.
A surge in refugee numbers, particularly in conflict zones where aid suspensions force people to migrate for survival.
Conclusion: A Global Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy
The downsizing of USAID under Trump’s leadership marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. While the administration frames it as an effort to reduce wasteful spending, the long-term consequences could be devastating for millions of people worldwide.
The debate over USAID’s role highlights a broader ideological divide: Should the U.S. continue its historical role as a global leader in humanitarian aid, or should it
