Upon returning to the White House, President Donald Trump leads a crusade to halt U.S. foreign aid. His swift closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) inhibits the distribution of crucial life-saving assistance to vulnerable populations and jeopardizes strategic American partnerships in 160 regions worldwide.

Guided by his ‘America First’ doctrine, Trump’s outlook on foreign aid is rooted in a broader domestic shift towards protectionism and semi-isolationism, as the president strives to demonstrate that America does not need nor will tolerate “freeloaders” on the global stage. However, rescinding foreign aid—a crucial pillar of U.S. soft power—threatens the balance of American health, economic, and security interests and could diminish U.S. influence on the global stage.

USAID and the America-Aid Relationship

USAID care packages displaying the message ‘From the American People’ have become emblematic of U.S. soft power. For decades, the U.S. has been the leading global foreign aid donor. In 2023, it contributed over US$70 billion in foreign aid, accounting for 40 per cent of distributed assistance worldwide, of which USAID manages about two-thirds. USAID has been the centrepiece of U.S. foreign aid efforts for over sixty years, delivering essential resources worldwide to combat food insecurity, public health crises, and climate disasters, among other emergencies. 

Foreign assistance has been a tenet of U.S. foreign policy since the Cold War. Its fundamental ideals—including peace and security, global health, democracy, and economic development—advance America’s strategic security interests by combating poverty, disease, and instability while strengthening interstate affiliations. Yet, Trump’s posture on aid runs counter to long-standing U.S. foreign policy. He proclaims that USAID, run by “radical lunatics,” counteracts government efficiency and does not align with core American interests.

The Trump Administration’s subsequent attack on foreign aid began on January 26th, when the U.S. State Department halted all foreign assistance managed by USAID, which handles approximately 60 percent of the annual U.S. foreign aid budget. On March 10th, the administration announced the cancellation of 83 per cent of USAID programs and 5,200 contracts, effectively incapacitating the organization. 

Trump’s order to halt foreign aid has been criticized as an “unconstitutional exercise of presidential power” by global health groups and received pushback from the Supreme Court, mandating roughly US$2 billion in payments for aid contracts. Nevertheless, he has ultimately succeeded in stripping down USAID.

Trump’s framing of USAID and foreign assistance as a “significant waste” deepens misleading narratives that aid occupies a substantial portion of the U.S. federal budget. Polls have shown that Americans believe foreign aid constitutes roughly 20 per cent of federal spending; many would be satisfied if it were reduced to 10 per cent. In reality, aid accounts for a little over 1 per cent. 

Despite being the largest international aid donor, the U.S. contribution of 0.24 per cent of its per capita income is rather unremarkable. By this measure, the U.S. contributes the least of all G7 nations annually. It is, therefore, difficult to rationalize eliminating U.S. foreign aid as a top policy priority to enhance government efficiency.

The Health and Immigration Risks of Slashing Foreign Aid

The administration’s campaign against foreign aid is entrenched in Trump’s transition away from diplomacy and multilateralism toward isolationism, languishing long-standing U.S. alliances and policies. In this regard, ‘America First’ has thus far been literal. His sabotage of American foreign aid and the partnerships formed as a result seek to demonstrate that global problems are not America’s problems—however, they threaten to become just that.

Cutting foreign aid poses major threats to health and security in developing countries and America alike. The Center for Public Health and Human Rights warns that ending crucial health partnerships in disease-prevalent developing countries impairs America’s capability to prevent the spread of deadly illnesses and forecast their arrival within its borders. Following cuts in aid to the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the organization has alerted U.S. policymakers of the monumental risk of the Mpox virus cascading into the next global pandemic.

Health officials claim the resulting aid-partnership gap will create “an inability to understand, anticipate, and respond” to consequential global health risks. In Sub-Saharan Africa, where deadly mosquito infections such as Zika and Malaria are prevalent, resource constraints have already reduced local effectiveness in combating the spread of diseases. 

In addition to advancing global and U.S. health interests, foreign assistance helps mitigate threats driving migration by expanding economic opportunities, fighting food insecurity, reducing violence, preventing extremism, and responding to severe weather disasters, often lowering migration rates. The White House’s opening ‘America First’ brief highlights Trump’s mission to “secure our border and protect American communities.” Yet, immigration experts caution that USAID cuts will only increase incentives for irregular and undocumented immigration into the U.S., compounded by strained health systems in parts of the Global South due to USAID’s absence. 

Trump’s policy hinders the capacity of international organizations like the United Nations Agency for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration to support the world’s most vulnerable populations, which could result in a surge of illegal migrant trafficking networks. By slashing foreign aid, Trump indirectly undermines his pursuit of curbing illegal immigration.

Implications for American Soft Power and National Security

For nearly a century, the American government has maintained that investing in foreign assistance generates domestic returns. By assisting developing countries, the U.S. has strengthened diplomatic ties and expanded markets for American exports. These benefits are historically supported: eleven of America’s top fifteen export markets have previously been aid recipients, including South Korea, to which the U.S. now exports over US$40 billion in goods annually. Therefore, aid specialists warn that halting foreign aid will yield economic ramifications for the U.S., as diminishing export markets abroad will harm trade partnerships and domestic producers.

Above all, U.S. foreign aid is paramount for American security interests. Through robust interstate aid partnerships, the U.S. advances its national security by curbing instability that fuels the rise of extremism and authoritarianism in conflict-prone regions. This has been exemplified through USAID programs in Africa’s Sahel region, which proved effective in reducing recruitment in violent extremist groups like Boko Haram among vulnerable populations.

The global aid vacuum catalyzed by Trump degrades long-standing American soft power. Power gaps in developing nations open avenues for Beijing and Moscow to shift the balance of influence throughout the Global South. Now positioned as a leading candidate to fill the multilateral aid gap, China may assume uncontested control over American development partnerships, expanding its soft power while diminishing U.S. influence abroad. 

Foreign aid is certainly not perfectly effective, and USAID has rightly faced critiques regarding its shortcomings; however, its capacity to provide life-saving assistance is unmistakable. Cutting U.S. foreign aid will upend the international development sector worldwide and undoubtedly fuel anti-American sentiment across the developing world. 
Dismantling one of the “three Ds” of American foreign policy—diplomacy, development, and defence—endangers the future balance of U.S. global influence. Although the full ramifications of terminating USAID have yet to be fully realized, Trump’s claim that it does not align with or even harms American interests is naive. His attack on foreign aid—labelled a “wilful sabotage of U.S. soft power”—will wound national economic, health, and security interests in the long run.

Edited by Jane Malek

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.

Featured image by Wikimedia Commons