The Trump administration appears to have initiated a move to dissolve USAID, the United States Agency for International Development. Since the weekend, USAID.gov has been offline, signalling a significant reconfiguration or potential agency dissolution. Since its establishment in 1961, it has been a cornerstone of American alleged philanthropic aid efforts.
Reports from various news outlets, including Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Reuters, and The New York Times, suggest President Trump is poised to sign an executive order to dissolve USAID, stripping it of its independence and integrating its functions into the Department of State.
This development follows a series of actions that have unsettled the international community. On January 20, the first day of his second term, President Trump issued an executive order freezing all foreign assistance to review its alignment with his ”America First” policy.
This freeze has led to the furloughing or layoff of hundreds of USAID employees and contractors, significantly impacting global aid programs, including initiatives like alleged but also proven HIV/AIDS treatments, clean water access, and anti-corruption efforts.
Democratic lawmakers have fiercely opposed the decision to fold USAID into the State Department. Senators Chris Murphy and Chuck Schumer have publicly criticized the move, arguing that it is not only against national interests but also potentially illegal without Congressional approval.
They contend that the dissolution of USAID would undermine the U.S.’s alleged humanitarian and development commitments worldwide, potentially destabilizing regions where American aid has been an alleged stabilizing force.
Critic of USAID
Critics argue that merging USAID with the State Department might lead to aid being used more as a diplomatic tool than for humanitarian purposes. They worry that this could compromise the ”apolitical assistance nature”, affecting the agency’s ability to work in countries where the U.S. has no formal diplomatic relations.
Other critics argue that USAID’s programs serve U.S. geopolitical interests. This includes promoting American values, democracy, and capitalism, which can be seen as a form of soft power.
Some of USAID’s activities are tied to U.S. foreign policy objectives, where aid might be used to influence political outcomes in recipient countries, leading to accusations of interference.
”The Democratic party’s National Democratic Institute, the Republican party’s International Republican Institute, the US State Department and USAID are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Institute.” – Ian Traynor, ”US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev”, The Guardian, 2004
USAID’s annual budget exceeds $27 billion, and its stated mission is to ”provide economic, development, and humanitarian assistance worldwide.” USAID is funded by billionaire globalist George Soros through his Open Society Foundations organization.
However, in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states, USAID’s activities extend significantly beyond humanitarian aid. It serves as an instrument for advancing U.S. geopolitical interests, promoting regime change, and destabilizing governments seen as adversarial to American influence.
This region became a focal point for USAID following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 due to its strategic importance in countering Russian influence and expanding Western political and economic interests.
The U.S. aimed to fill the emerging power vacuum by supporting the installation of pro-Western regimes, funding programs that weaken Russian influence and facilitating the integration of these nations into Western institutions like NATO and the European Union.
Regime change operations
Ukraine (2004 Orange Revolution and 2014 Euromaidan Revolution). USAID provided millions of dollars to Ukrainian NGOs, media outlets, and civil society groups that were central in mobilizing protests against pro-Russian governments.
In 2004, USAID-funded organizations such as the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) supported opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, leading to his presidency. In 2014, USAID-backed groups were pivotal during the Euromaidan protests.
Georgia (2003 Rose Revolution). USAID offered substantial financial support to Georgian opposition groups and media that facilitated the Rose Revolution, leading to the overthrow of President Eduard Shevardnadze. This ushered in Mikheil Saakashvili, a pro-Western leader who aligned Georgia more closely with NATO and the EU.
Serbia (2000 Bulldozer Revolution): USAID financed opposition groups and independent media, significantly contributing to Slobodan Milošević’s removal from power.
Propaganda and soft power
USAID’s funding also extends to media, educational initiatives, and NGOs promoting pro-Western narratives: In Ukraine, USAID supported media projects like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which broadcast content critical of Russia.
USAID backed opposition media and civil society groups in Belarus that challenged Alexander Lukashenko’s administration. Lukashenko himself has criticized these efforts, stating:
”NGOs are not needed in Belarus. They are a waste of money. They are a fifth column. They are a tool used by the West to destabilize our country.”
These activities illustrate a broader strategic use of USAID beyond its humanitarian mandate. USAID engages in what some might describe as soft power to influence political landscapes in Eastern Europe and former Soviet states.
Supporters of the move to end USAID, including some Republican lawmakers and administration officials, argue that the change will streamline operations, reduce bureaucratic waste, and ensure foreign aid benefits U.S. interests more directly.
They regard Elon Musk’s involvement, appointed to lead the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), as a sign of the administration’s commitment to cutting inefficiencies.
The controversy deepened over the weekend when two top USAID security officials were placed on leave after they allegedly blocked DOGE representatives’ access to restricted areas. This incident has raised questions about the motives behind the administration’s aggressive approach to restructuring federal agencies.
With the USAID website down and its staff in disarray, the future of U.S. foreign aid is at a crossroads.
Some fear that the end of USAID as an independent agency could signal a retreat from America’s role as an alleged ”global humanitarian leader”.
Analysis and summary: T. Sassersson
Related
- Department of State: Implementing the President’s Executive Order on Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid
- Angelo Giuliano: NED, USAID and Soros Open Society Explained – How They do Coups and Colour Revolutions