In early 2025, the Trump administration launched an aggressive restructuring of U.S. foreign aid, effectively dismantling the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through mass layoffs, contract terminations, and a sweeping executive order. This analysis examines the bureaucratic collapse and its immediate humanitarian and geopolitical fallout—from shuttered clinics and destroyed food aid to China’s growing influence in the global south. Drawing on legal battles, policy shifts, and expert insights, we explore what a post-Trump USAID might look like: leaner, outsourced, and strategically reframed. Whether rebuilt or reimagined, USAID’s future could shape the next era of American soft power—and determine how, and whether, the U.S. continues to lead in global development.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—an institution with roots tracing back to Kennedy’s 1961 vision of American global leadership—suddenly found itself at the epicenter of a sweeping overhaul when Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025. With an executive order freezing virtually all foreign aid and a zeal for reshaping federal priorities, Trump’s administration effectively dismantled USAID as it had existed for six decades. In its place, a leaner, non-independent skeleton emerged, leaving behind a legacy of gutted programs, uprooted staff, and profound implications for U.S. diplomacy and humanitarian reach.
The Sweeping Cuts
Within weeks of assuming office, Trump signed Executive Order 14169, imposing a 90‑day moratorium on U.S. development aid—with narrow exemptions for emergency food and military aid. Almost immediately, USAID suspended thousands of contracts and grant agreements, triggering a domestic and global scramble to assess the fallout.
What followed was nothing short of profound. By early February, nearly 10,000 staff members, including foreign service officers, civil servants, and local hires around the world, were placed on paid leave or outright terminated—reducing the agency’s footprint to just 294 core personnel. This decimation came amid a wave of contract cancellations—over 5,200 out of 6,200 active engagements were axed—effectively halting 83 percent of USAID’s global programming.
Chaos in the Field
The consequences were immediate. Crucial humanitarian efforts—including the President’s Malaria Initiative, polio eradication campaigns, maternal and child health programs, and a dozen clinical trials—were brought to a halt. In refugee camps, water and vaccine distribution stalled. In Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Ukraine, wounds reopened as local staff fled or programs dissolved.
One particularly acute moment came last week, when warehouses in Dubai, stocked with emergency food aid intended for conflict zones, saw over 500 metric tons of rations set to be destroyed as they exceeded their expiration date—food meant to feed thousands of children, now wasted at great cost.
Legal and Bureaucratic Resistance
Courtrooms, NGOs, foreign governments, and U.S.-based development champions fought back. Lawsuits—penalizing executive overreach in defunding Congress-approved programs—hit the bureaucracy hard. Administrative hold orders were issued; court interventions mandated staff reinstatements, yet the political machinery pressed on. Inspector General audits were scrubbed; oversight mechanisms dismantled; and in March, acting USAID director and Secretary of State Marco Rubio notified Congress that all non-essential programs and staff would be subsumed under the State Department.
Enter the Department of Government Efficiency
Instrumental to the purge was then-Trump ally Elon Musk, who led the novel “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), tasked with trimming what it deemed waste. DOGE’s intervention in USAID—executively swift—came amid a broader Trump agenda seeking to limit diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and streamline the federal apparatus under ideological and efficiency-driven imperatives.
Outsourcing as the New Pivot
With USAID effectively neutralized, its functions began to shift toward private contractors, NGOs, and international organizations. That pivot aligned with Trump’s professed preference for “public–private partnerships;” but while the government claimed increased efficiency, the reality was murkier: millions in stop-work orders imperiled contractors; NGOs scrambled for survival; vital health and agricultural programs teetered on collapse.
Global Implications
The vacuum has led to strategic vulnerability. In Africa, China accelerated infrastructure funding; in health, the World Health Organization and the World Food Programme (WFP) were forced to patch gaps. In fragile states like Afghanistan, hunger surged and healthcare systems collapsed: nearly 420 clinics closed, impacting over 3 million people; WFP scaled back from serving ten million to one million vulnerable civilians.
The Human Cost of Retreat
Estimates now suggest that up to 14 million preventable deaths—including 4.5 million children under five—could result by 2030 due to this rupture. A Lancet study underscores the scale, while field reports from Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America confirm the grim outlook. The blow extends beyond public health: through instrumented global leadership, foreign aid has long been a central tenet of U.S. soft power. That has shifted to adversaries.
The Post‑Trump Terrain: What USAID Might Become
Assuming a post-Trump administration in 2029—or a moderate Republican restoration—what might a rebuilt USAID look like? The agency will likely re-emerge, but not as it was: it will be smaller, more efficient, and deeply networked with private and nonprofit partners.
Independence—and a Core Team
Most analysts agree that restoring USAID as an independent agency will be vital to reassert American global leadership. It would require Congressional reauthorization to counter future executive impoundment, and a core federal staff—likely 1,500 to 2,000 employees—to oversee strategy, compliance, and assessment. These officials would lead planning, diplomacy, monitoring and evaluation, safeguarding mission coherence.
A Hub‑and‑Spoke Delivery Model
This model envisions USAID focusing on policy, oversight, and funds disbursement, while program execution—agriculture, health, disaster relief, infrastructure—would rely on contractors and NGOs, both U.S.- and local-based. By leveraging nimble agencies with deep in-country expertise, the agency could move faster and adapt to context. It would also honor Trump’s push toward private sector primacy, but with safeguards.
Accountability with Digital Transparency
Reconstitution must come paired with tougher oversight: strengthening the Inspector General, embedding third-party audits, and launching digital procurement dashboards for real-time tracking. Digital tools could deter fraud and align spending with outcomes—an improvement over pre-2025 bureaucratic opacity.
Geostrategic Reframing
A reoriented USAID would link programs to larger national goals: combating authoritarianism, securing climate resilience, pandemic preparedness, and balancing China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific and Africa. Humanitarian and developmental funds would align with foreign policy—forging a diplomatic development nexus.
Rebuilding Trust and Partnerships
The human element cannot be ignored: decades of field staff—many now in NGOs or academia—will need to be rehired. International partners must trust that commitments made will be honored. New flagship initiatives could create momentum. Involving bipartisan champions, like the Global Leadership Coalition, could help lock in institutional resilience.
A Harder Path, but Not Impossible
USAID’s rupture under Trump was swift and extreme—an ideological purge disguised as an efficiency drive. Thousands lost jobs, lifesaving programs paused at great cost, and U.S. soft power diminished—just as rivals accelerated their presence; but the agency itself was not abolished by statute—it remains, albeit gutted, waiting for a rebirth.
In a post-Trump era, reassembling USAID with a smaller but expert core, rooted in strong oversight and aligned with strategic priorities, could yield a more modern, resilient institution. A hub‑and‑spoke model may appease fiscal hawks, while preserving humanitarian and developmental impact; but for that vision to hold, political safeguards must be instituted: congressional protections, digital eyes on aid flows, and visible leadership of U.S. global engagement.
Rebuilding USAID will not mean returning to the pre‑2025 status quo. Rather, it offers an opportunity: to craft a new model of American engagement—leaner, smarter, purpose‑driven, and morally anchored. Whether the U.S. chooses to seize that opportunity may define the coming century of global development.
Idris B. Odunewu is an executive editor at Use Our Intel, covering security, technology, governance, and global health.
