How the Reduction of USAID Funding Could Impact Americans
Trump's decision to reduce foreign aid might lead to more significant outcomes than he anticipates.
TroibNews 
Elon Musk’s involvement with DOGE has made significant inroads within the federal government, achieving notable influence over the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed gratitude to Musk and highlighted that 83 percent of USAID programs had been canceled.
The political ramifications of the dismantling of USAID remain uncertain, but the immediate effects of halting foreign aid and interrupting established programs are beginning to manifest for the Trump administration.
So, what are the implications — for America and the globe? Here are some insights.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
1. What role does USAID play in global stability?
USAID administers over $40 billion annually in foreign assistance, operating in more than 120 countries. This funding supports a wide range of initiatives, including aid for refugees from regions like Ukraine, as well as the development of educational systems and governance. A significant portion of U.S. foreign aid focuses on global health initiatives, providing everything from mosquito nets to combat malaria to vaccinations against diseases like measles and polio, and efforts to combat the rise of AIDS in African nations.
Individuals who lose this assistance may face increased vulnerability to starvation, disease, and radical ideologies. For instance, without educational services, young people may resort to activities that could lead to increased crime.
There are already reports of people literally dying due to the U.S. freezing its assistance. The State Department has stated it issued waivers for what it deems core life-saving materials, including medicine and food; however, these waivers lack clarity, leaving many organizations uncertain about what qualifies. Furthermore, with most of USAID’s staff on leave and complications affecting payment systems, the approval of waivers and the flow of funds has become nearly impossible for numerous groups.
2. How does a weakened USAID affect the United States?
A substantial portion of U.S. foreign assistance spending occurs domestically. For example, the government purchases large quantities of grains and other food items from American farmers, which are then shipped overseas to feed those in need.
Due to the freeze on foreign aid, these food supplies remain unused, and many farmers are not receiving the payments they expected. This could amount to hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars over time. Health care companies such as Pfizer and Abbott also depend on funding from USAID to provide medicines and materials worldwide, meaning unfulfilled contracts could have negative repercussions for them and the U.S. economy overall.
3. How could job cuts affect the aid network?
The individuals employed by USAID are vital for executing essential functions. They serve as key connectors who ensure funding is distributed; manage contracts; and verify that finances are utilized correctly. With many of these employees on leave or terminated, the effect is akin to removing the heart of the global aid network.
Moreover, USAID frequently collaborates with private contractors, and many organizations benefiting from this relationship have also had to lay off personnel. This creates a ripple effect that could lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs as a result of these cuts.
4. How do USAID’s contributions compare to those of other countries?
Without U.S. assistance, other nations, international organizations, and NGOs will need to secure alternative funding sources or find means to coordinate efforts without U.S. support.
This presents a significant challenge, akin to having a body devoid of a spine. Some nations, particularly in Europe, such as Norway, also provide substantial aid. There is also a growing concern among U.S. foreign policy analysts that China could fill this void, potentially strengthening its influence in the future.
5. What happens when the U.S. abandons its role as the leader in global aid?
There is apprehension that withdrawing U.S. assistance could lead to increased instability in areas that were previously secure. Diseases that were kept in check may spread, and during natural disasters, the lack of resources may hinder effective responses for affected populations.
Ultimately, the pressing issue is that if the U.S. creates a vacuum and later attempts to reestablish its presence, it would face an even more monumental task than before. While it is relatively easy to dismantle these networks, restoring them is a lengthy process — and in that interim, lives hang in the balance.
Ramin Sohrabi contributed to this report for TROIB News
The political ramifications of the dismantling of USAID remain uncertain, but the immediate effects of halting foreign aid and interrupting established programs are beginning to manifest for the Trump administration.
So, what are the implications — for America and the globe? Here are some insights.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
1. What role does USAID play in global stability?
USAID administers over $40 billion annually in foreign assistance, operating in more than 120 countries. This funding supports a wide range of initiatives, including aid for refugees from regions like Ukraine, as well as the development of educational systems and governance. A significant portion of U.S. foreign aid focuses on global health initiatives, providing everything from mosquito nets to combat malaria to vaccinations against diseases like measles and polio, and efforts to combat the rise of AIDS in African nations.
Individuals who lose this assistance may face increased vulnerability to starvation, disease, and radical ideologies. For instance, without educational services, young people may resort to activities that could lead to increased crime.
There are already reports of people literally dying due to the U.S. freezing its assistance. The State Department has stated it issued waivers for what it deems core life-saving materials, including medicine and food; however, these waivers lack clarity, leaving many organizations uncertain about what qualifies. Furthermore, with most of USAID’s staff on leave and complications affecting payment systems, the approval of waivers and the flow of funds has become nearly impossible for numerous groups.
2. How does a weakened USAID affect the United States?
A substantial portion of U.S. foreign assistance spending occurs domestically. For example, the government purchases large quantities of grains and other food items from American farmers, which are then shipped overseas to feed those in need.
Due to the freeze on foreign aid, these food supplies remain unused, and many farmers are not receiving the payments they expected. This could amount to hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars over time. Health care companies such as Pfizer and Abbott also depend on funding from USAID to provide medicines and materials worldwide, meaning unfulfilled contracts could have negative repercussions for them and the U.S. economy overall.
3. How could job cuts affect the aid network?
The individuals employed by USAID are vital for executing essential functions. They serve as key connectors who ensure funding is distributed; manage contracts; and verify that finances are utilized correctly. With many of these employees on leave or terminated, the effect is akin to removing the heart of the global aid network.
Moreover, USAID frequently collaborates with private contractors, and many organizations benefiting from this relationship have also had to lay off personnel. This creates a ripple effect that could lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs as a result of these cuts.
4. How do USAID’s contributions compare to those of other countries?
Without U.S. assistance, other nations, international organizations, and NGOs will need to secure alternative funding sources or find means to coordinate efforts without U.S. support.
This presents a significant challenge, akin to having a body devoid of a spine. Some nations, particularly in Europe, such as Norway, also provide substantial aid. There is also a growing concern among U.S. foreign policy analysts that China could fill this void, potentially strengthening its influence in the future.
5. What happens when the U.S. abandons its role as the leader in global aid?
There is apprehension that withdrawing U.S. assistance could lead to increased instability in areas that were previously secure. Diseases that were kept in check may spread, and during natural disasters, the lack of resources may hinder effective responses for affected populations.
Ultimately, the pressing issue is that if the U.S. creates a vacuum and later attempts to reestablish its presence, it would face an even more monumental task than before. While it is relatively easy to dismantle these networks, restoring them is a lengthy process — and in that interim, lives hang in the balance.
Ramin Sohrabi contributed to this report for TROIB News
