Trump’s push to shut down USAID shows how international development is all about strategic interests

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is on the verge of being shut down by United States President Donald Trump’s administration.

On Feb. 4, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the agency would be taken over by the State Department. He stated that “all USAID direct hire personnel will be placed on administrative leave globally.”

This move comes after Trump and his officials have heavily criticized the role and ineffectiveness of the agency. Trump said USAID had “been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we’re getting them out,” while Tesla CEO and special government employee Elon Musk said it was “time for it to die.”

The closure of USAID will have significant consequences for many countries in the Global South. USAID is one of the largest development agencies in the world and funds programs that benefit millions of people, from supporting peace agreements in Colombia to fighting the spread of HIV in Uganda.

Around US$40 billion is allocated annually from the U.S. federal budget for humanitarian and development aid. If USAID is dismantled, it raises questions about how these funds will be redirected and the long-term impacts it will have on global development efforts.

A geopolitical fallout?

The potential dismantling of USAID has raised concerns among international development experts about a potential geopolitical fallout that could create unintended consequences for the U.S. itself.

Global issues, such as human security and climate change, are expected to be heavily affected. The U.S. also risks losing influence in the fight for soft power since dismantling USAID could leave behind a power vacuum. Other countries like Russia or China may occupy the space left by what was the largest international aid program in the world.

This shift could result in the U.S. losing its influence in regions like Africa, South America and Asia, where the country distributed aid to a number of non-governmental organizations, aid agencies and non-profits.

While the future of U.S. foreign assistance remains uncertain, other world powers have a role to play. European donors, despite some limitations in resources, remain committed to the 2030 Sustainable Development agenda.

Beyond humanitarianism

If the agency is shut down, it may be widely condemned on moral and humanitarian grounds. However, its closure would respond to a logic of strategic and ideological interests that has long shaped the international development system. This a key finding from my longstanding field research with organizations that receive funding, not only from USAID, but also from Canadian and European donors.

International development largely unfolded in the aftermath of the Second World War when global powers competed to establish a new world order. This led to the creation of international agreements and multilateral institutions, with major industrialized nations emerging as the primary donors of foreign aid.

While many international initiatives, like the Millennium Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, have guided development as we know it, the governments of main donor countries have their own interests in mind when providing aid.

In my research, I have interviewed many people involved in the foreign aid chain, including directors and offices of international non-governmental organizations and governmental co-operation agencies. Many said development relationships are shaped by both the interests of donors and those of recipient populations and organizations.

While these relationships may be based on humanitarian objectives, such as disaster relief or human rights advocacy, they can also be influenced by ideological, geopolitical, economic and social agendas.

In this context, the American move to eliminate USAID could be seen as one that prioritizes national security and economic goals over traditional global humanitarian concerns. Governments steer the wheel of international development according to their political ideologies and interests, regardless of the shock this may generate among citizens.

Canada’s role in all this

The U.S. is not the only country re-evaluating its international development policy. Sweden, another major country in the foreign aid sphere, is also changing its co-operation strategy following changes in its government and criticism of the NGOs that deploy their development assistance.

Canada’s role in this unfolding situation remains uncertain. With the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as head of the Liberal Party and the upcoming federal election, it’s unclear what will happen to Canada’s international development strategy going forward.

Under Stephen Harper, the country’s international development strategy was closely tied to expanding trade with developing countries based on maximizing the value of extractive economies and a strong defence policy. This approach aimed to bring value not only to the recipient country of aid, but to Canada as well.

When Trudeau took office, Canada’s development strategy turned to a more progressive agenda centred on peace keeping, feminist approaches and humanitarian programs.

Will Canada continue to champion human rights, human security and progressive agendas? Or will Canada reduce funds for foreign assistance, which seems to be the wish of many of its citizens?

The answer to these questions will depend on the direction that our political leaders decide to take, and the sentiments of citizens. Still, Canada’s approach to development aid will probably remain in a trade-off between moral imperatives of humanitarianism and strategic national interests.