Is the current rhetoric and ongoing overhaul of USAID justified?

Photo via Reuters

Ryan Li, CAS ‘28: I can see both sides: a nation’s duty is to prioritize its citizens, especially during times of great need, and America’s hegemonic responsibility as a global “policeman” to assist other nations. There are certainly inefficiencies and wasteful spending with the current aid system. Still, it would be irresponsible to cut off all foreign aid, especially to conflict zones or countries that would likely turn to our enemies such as China and Russia in the absence of U.S. support. I support substantial reforms at USAID if foreign aid is used more effectively and strategically.

Susy Teran, CAS ‘27: I believe USAID has a real impact on developing countries. Yet, Trump did win on an isolationist platform. Thus, from a democratic perspective, I am willing to concede to his viewpoint. What I find condemnable, however, is how USAID was dealt with. The government has a responsibility to revise programs on a case-by-case basis. Instead, the sudden overhaul bred an atmosphere of crisis.  Politically, this crisis is dangerous. Opportunistic actors often exploit panic to accrue power, and in doing so they jeopardize democracy. I can reluctantly tolerate the spending cuts, but not irresponsible and chaotic governance.

James Long, SFS ‘28: I see President Trump’s recent rhetoric and policy regarding USAID as irreparably damaging to American national security and influence on the world stage. The United States has long been a leader in global development and humanitarian aid, as well as a beacon of democratic values. Straying from this precedent and retreating to isolationism, especially at a time when our top adversary, China, continues to exert global influence through its Belt and Road Initiative, will only further the collapse of the international rules-based system. The U.S. should be a global role model, not a mere spectator.

Hannah Gilheany, ‘28: I believe the cut to USAID will be devastating on both a global and domestic level. The moral and ethical concerns of suddenly cutting international aid are devastating and undeniable. However, even a citizen with a strong America-first attitude should oppose this decision. Our withdrawal from foreign aid leaves our alliances and global support incredibly vulnerable, especially as China continues to rise. Furthermore, cutting over 10,000 employees will have detrimental effects on the United States’s economy. While reforming the federal government is a noble task, it must be done in a far more cautious manner. 

Evyn Brogley, SFS ‘28: USAID is a geopolitical soft-power tool the U.S. uses to build and maintain global influence. The U.S. will be heavily disadvantaged by removing it almost entirely. More importantly, however, is the millions relying on its aid, including HIV patients in Africa who may die without it. Ultimately, Musk and Trump’s efforts to dismantle federal bureaucracy aim to reduce resistance to authoritarian policies and redirect funds for massive tax cuts benefiting the ultra-wealthy and corporations—at the expense of the world and the American people. While reform is still necessary, it is an effort to consolidate Musk’s oligarchy under DOGE.

Andrew Cho, SFS ‘27: I feel like the new administration’s rhetoric revolving around USAID is contradictory. While Trump claims to prioritize efficiency and accountability by dissolving USAID, his continued process of bureaucratic slashing has actually increased complexity and inefficiency, actually adding layers of bureaucracy through the establishment of DOGE. Though USAID has indeed been criticized for its slow decision-making and complex funding process, I think overhauling the organization is extremely dangerous, as it serves as a key instrument of US soft power projection. Instead, the Trump administration should assess USAID’s merits and take steps to make bureaucratic reforms, not dismantle the agency.

Preston Hetrick, CAS ‘28: I think that while USAID has its issues and reform was potentially necessary, its effective shutdown is extreme. USAID provides millions of people with critical medicine, aid, and shelter throughout the world, and the Trump administration’s removal of our humanitarian missions only harms America’s global image. Abandoning our missions in Africa and Southeast Asia inadvertently helps China as we compete for political influence in those regions. The ruthlessness, swiftness, and sporadicity with which Trump’s administration is moving against government agencies is dangerous not just for the American people but all those around the globe.

Catherine Hughes, SFS ‘27: While I do feel there is a valid criticism of USAID, Trump’s rhetoric around the agency is not at all useful. First of all, shutting it down completely is very drastic. As we’ve seen in recent days, there are communities around the world struggling in the wake of this. I’m specifically referring to clinics set up to help communities affected by HIV and AIDS which have unfortunately closed. This leads me to my second point, the terrible misinformation. Providing condoms is necessary to stop the spread of diseases, they aren’t being used for weapons or to support some ideological stance. 

Writers’ Room is a special addition to On the Record, where the staff of OTR responds to a question in under 100 words with whatever their takes are on the issue.