Diplomacy on a Budget: Trump’s USAID Cuts to Save Money Come at the Expense of American Foreign Influence

"USAID" by US Army Africa is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

With the goal to limit “waste” and “abuse” within the executive branch, President Trump, alongside an un-elected Elon Musk, has launched a campaign to gut USAID, the country’s leading mechanism for providing foreign assistance. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long stood as a cornerstone of American humanitarian and development efforts, playing a critical role in fostering global stability and support. Established to aid countries and promote progress, its work has alleviated suffering and reinforced U.S. influence on a global level. On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order halting all U.S. foreign aid for ninety days, beginning the defunding and subsequent deconstruction of USAID. 

The agency was established in 1961 through an executive order by President John F. Kennedy to mainstream foreign assistance. During the Cold War, the agency became the leading tool behind soft power initiatives and has since evolved into a comprehensive mechanism for U.S. foreign policy. From combating infectious diseases to investing in long-term global stability, USAID’s multifaceted programs have transformed countless communities and maintained American soft power.

Sowhy is Trump so keen on killing USAID? This cutback is a manifestation of Trump’s focus on national interests and his “America First” policy, which, in his mind, means international aid is expendable. In his executive order, Trump explained foreign aid is “not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values.” The administration argued that streamlining the agency would eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies and align U.S. spending with domestic priorities. In a press conference, Trump claimed the agency is composed of "radical left lunatics" while Elon Musk similarly posted to X calling the organization a “criminal agency” followed by “time for it to die”. This shift is deeply worrying for U.S. influence, as it undermines the enduring alliances that have long supported America's global leadership position.

The proposed reduction of USAID staff and funding will have profound consequences for global humanitarian efforts, severely limiting America’s ability to respond when needed. The agency’s work in disaster relief, education, and healthcare has served as a lifeline for millions of individuals around the world. Without these essential programs, vulnerable populations are left with minimal resources and assistance, furthering the gravity of their situations. Perhaps more concerning is the void that the U.S. absence creates, allowing countries like China or Russia to step in. If they are seeking to expand their influence through foreign assistance, American soft power could be ultimately diminished and strategic international relations weakened.

The rollback of USAID funding not only poses a diplomatic setback but also carries severe economic and social consequences for both the United States and the world. Reduced investments in health, education, and infrastructure hinder long-term development in emerging economies, hindering job and economic growth. As communities lose access to essential services, the widening gap in social welfare can exacerbate poverty and instability, ultimately creating conditions that undermine both local progress and global economic stability. Without USAID, the mutual benefits of international cooperation are jeopardized, potentially diminishing America's role as a key driver of global development and prosperity.

Even though it was implemented on January 20th, negative effects have already emerged. About 13,000 American workers have been reportedly laid off, but others believe the real number is more than four times that. Diplomats stationed abroad established lives in their given areas and are now struggling to pay bills and question how they will be able to return home. It is estimated that bringing those abroad back home will cost American taxpayers over $20 million. Shipping containers full of aid are stuck or being diverted, for example, 33,000 metric tons of soybeans were halted from reaching their destination in East Africa to combat malnutrition. This chaos affects Americans too, with $500 million worth of American-produced crops perishing on ships around the world. 

USAID’s budget, while significant, is a small fraction of the U.S. federal government’s overall spending. In 2023, the agency received $45 billion in congressional appropriations, which only accounts for 0.7% of federal spending that year. To put this into perspective, outlays for the Department of Defense were $775.9 billion, meaning USAID’s budget is roughly 5% of the DoD’s. Trump insists that reducing USAID funding will help trim excessive government spending and refocus resources on American priorities, but in practice, these cuts are unlikely to yield any meaningful savings or benefits. Instead, this funding should be viewed as a modest investment into significant long-term returns in global stability and U.S. soft power. Cutting this relatively small expense risks dismantling a critical tool for international influence while providing negligible savings. Moreover, such a drastic shift in foreign policy not only undermines long-standing alliances but also creates a strategic vacuum that could be exploited by geopolitical rivals. 

Instead of across-the-board cuts, the government should spend time researching past spending and focus on targeted reforms that will enhance the agency’s efficiency without undermining its critical functions of American influence. If anything, given the number of conflicts around the world, more funding should be directed towards USAID. This could potentially reduce the need for defense spending by addressing the root causes of instability before they escalate into conflicts. Proactive aid could cost less than reactive support and allows stability to be achieved through non-violent methods. Given that this scenario is highly unlikely, the government should consider implementing performance metrics, enhanced oversight, or stronger accountability measures, as the implications of USAID create a value to American national security that greatly outweighs the cost of the current budget. 

While the Trump administration frames the proposed USAID cuts as a necessary step to eliminate waste and refocus resources on domestic priorities, such measures risk eroding a key instrument of U.S. foreign influence. USAID, despite its modest share of federal spending, plays a critical role in promoting global stability, fostering long-term development, and strengthening international alliances. Dismantling this agency not only disrupts essential humanitarian efforts but also creates a power vacuum that American adversaries may strategically move to exploit. Ultimately, Trump’s decision to cut USAID funding was a harmful misstep and contrary to his “America First” initiative. The President claims his new agenda “defends our economic and national security,” yet dismantling USAID undermines the global leadership that ultimately secures American influence in international relations. By playing politics with such a crucial agency, Trump jeopardizes both global stability and America’s role as a leader in foreign assistance.