The Dismantling of USAID is an Opportunity to Revamp How International Aid Works—And Who It Works For

Humanitarian aid and international development will never be the same. While millions are still reeling from the seismic repercussions of the Trump administration’s dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), those who care about humanitarianism, human rights, peace, justice, and development must face this new reality. It is time to convene and align on a strategy to respond to actions by the current administration, influence the administration on future policy decisions, adapt to the new financial landscape, and brainstorm how to ensure people’s dignity and stability moving forward.

The Situation

On his first day in office, President Trump issued a 90-day pause on all foreign assistance programming. Everything from emergency food assistance to landmine removal to the fight against Ebola, malaria, and HIV/AIDS was thrown into disarray. Waivers were supposedly given for “life-saving humanitarian assistance programs,” but as one USAID employee stated: “The waiver for humanitarian assistance has been a farce.” Political leadership did not offer guidance to staff or grantees on what qualified as life-saving assistance and a gag order and retaliation against staff ensured that no one answered as grantees and implementing partners desperately tried to reach their contacts in government. The online system for disbursing funds became nonfunctional, there were virtually no staff to send funds to the few programs that managed to get waivers, and waivers did not encompass the logistical services needed to actually deliver waived assistance. Though these waivers provided a rhetorical crutch for President Trump, Elon Musk, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in interviews, operationally they demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding or care for how procurement and supply chains function.

Initially, some remained hopeful that after the 90-day pause, the system might return to “normal,” albeit with some potential steep cuts to foreign assistance. However, it soon became clear that the Trump administration’s goal wasn’t to pause and reform foreign assistance but to dismantle it entirely.

Just two weeks after Trump’s Executive Order, thousands of USAID staff were laid off or put on leave, staff were barred entry from their offices, and signs at USAID’s headquarters were ripped off the walls or covered up. With stop work orders and payments withheld even for services already delivered, humanitarian, peacebuilding, and development organizations began massive layoffs across the world. Entire organizations have been forced to close, likely permanently, while NGOs, local partners, and research institutions have seen significant workforce reductions. Programs worldwide have been shuttered without responsible drawdowns or certainty for the future. Leaving millions stranded without support.

As of March 18, 2025, USAID Stop Work has confirmed over 140,000 jobs have been lost globally and over 15,000 American jobs have been lost since the stop work order was given in January.

USAID Wasn’t Always a Target

While Republicans have consistently tried to decrease the foreign aid budget and broader federal spending on everything except the military, the benefits of US soft power through development and humanitarian aid programs historically had strong bipartisan support in Congress.

As a Senator, Secretary of State Marco Rubio often spoke about the importance of USAID. “Foreign aid as a part of our overall budget is less than 1% of the total amount the US Government spends,” Rubio said in one 2017 speech on the Senate floor. “I promise you it is going to be a lot harder to recruit someone to anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism if the United States of America is the reason one is even alive today.” In 2013, Rubio stated, “We don’t have to give foreign aid. We do so because it furthers our national interest. That’s why we give foreign aid. Now obviously there’s a component to foreign aid that’s humanitarian in scope, and that’s important too.”

But none of that mattered once Elon Musk and DOGE set their sights on USAID. Musk took to his X platform and called USAID a “criminal organization” and celebrated “feeding USAID into the wood chipper” with barely any public pushback from Congressional Republicans. There is a lot that can be said about the world’s richest man celebrating taking food out of malnourished children’s mouths, preventing families from accessing clean drinking water, and shutting down hospitals providing medical care for some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. Disparaging public servants who, in some cases have, risked their lives to do this important work was particularly disappointing.

Despite previous Republican support for foreign aid, GOP members of Congress have applauded the dismantling of USAID and refused to rein in Trump’s executive overreach. Republicans appear willing to abandon Congress’ role as a co-equal branch of government with the power of the purse. Democrats have expressed their opposition to these cuts, but remain frozen and divided unable to muster a clear opposition strategy. A lack of public understanding of the importance and benefits of foreign aid is an example of Democrats’ years-long inability to forge a convincing narrative and policy on foreign policy and spending. Behind the scenes, both parties have engaged in heated private meetings and email chains with the executive branch and DOGE, but with limited effect.

Republican lawmakers ceding their power to the president is not new and has become all too common. From not pushing Trump to follow through on the controversial TikTok ban Congress passed into law last year, to being unphased as DOGE and Trump dismantle Congressionally approved government agencies, to redefining what a “calendar day” means to avoid having to vote on the national emergency powers Trump is using to haphazardly slap allies with tariffs, it is clear that Congressional Republicans have decided to roll over, hoping Musk won’t bankroll someone to primary them in the next election.

Where Do We Go From Here?

We must recognize that the aid world will not return to the way it was. While several lawsuits have been filed by grantees and federal employees, much of the institutional damage that has been done is unlikely to be reversed. Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that DOGE was likely violating the constitution, blocked DOGE from making further cuts to USAID, and ordered the restoration of email and computer access to all USAID employees, including those on administrative leave. However, the order did not reverse the firings of employees or restore USAID’s infrastructure to what it was before the DOGE campaign. It remains to be seen how the Trump administration will respond to this judicial order as it has ignored others.

Beyond the US, European donor countries have been drawing down foreign aid spending for years, including significant reductions in the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands in recent months. Private and non-traditional donors are now besieged with the increased global need with little relief on the horizon. Even if Democrats regain some power over what remains of the federal government in two or four years, it will be a serious uphill battle to rebuild what has been torn down and to justify renewed aid budgets. And not everything should be rebuilt the way it was. This chaos does provide an opportunity to rethink how foreign aid works and make improvements to not only the entire aid system but foreign policy writ large.

Recommendations

These recommendations are just a starting point and focus mainly on the US government at this moment. The Human Security Project will be reaching out to former USAID staff, implementers, and civil society organizations for additional, in-depth recommendations for the global donor community.

Immediate Term

• Fix the waiver system. The current waiver system for life-saving aid is not working. If Senator Rubio actually wants life-saving aid to continue, he would ensure the appropriate staff are in place to manage contracts and disbursements with no more roadblocks from DOGE or activist political appointees.

• Disburse funds immediately. Many organizations understandably have little faith in the current administration, as they have already delivered work that the administration is fighting to not have to pay them for. This money must be disbursed up-front to ensure implementing partners can pay workers and purchase goods without being saddled with debt.

• Ensure waivers cover the full project. Waivers must be given not only for “life-saving aid” but for everything it takes to ensure life-saving aid can reach the people who need it. A food assistance waiver is meaningless unless accompanied by funding to transport the food assistance to distribution centers and to distribute it to people who are famine-stricken and food insecure.

• Transfer payments from USAID to the State Department. If USAID programming is being absorbed into the State Department, as has been reported, outstanding payments for life-saving aid must either be transferred to the State Department’s payment system. Since the two agencies currently use different payment processing systems, outstanding money for programs that have, in theory, been given a waiver may end up not being processed due to bureaucratic technical hurdles.

Mid to Long Term

• Shift away from giant grants to massive implementing partners and toward smaller grants to locally-led initiatives. Despite years of attempts to prioritize support for local organizations, the procurement process and stubbornness within government have made it difficult to make this transition. Rhetoric alone will not solve this issue, the procurement process must change. Putting out a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) with a million-dollar ceiling and floor makes it nearly impossible for small NGOs and CSOs to effectively compete for those funding opportunities.

• Adjust oversight and due diligence requirements for smaller grants. The oversight and due diligence requirements for a multi-million dollar grant should not be the same as a one-hundred-thousand dollar grant. More flexibility is needed to work with smaller organizations that do not have entire departments dedicated to grant writing and monitoring and evaluation. This does not mean there should not be oversight, but the level and type of oversight should be adjusted based on the grant size. European donors have found ways to be more flexible in their funding, and the US should follow their lead. The dire need and brave work of Sudan’s ad hoc, non-traditional Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) is a case in point.

  
  

• Focus on multi-year investments, not just one-year authorizations. The Global Fragility Act (GFA) which passed Congress with strong bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Trump in 2019, was meant to be a model for how the US government should rethink aid partnerships. The GFA was created in part due to the recognition that one-year authorizations do not allow for long-term strategy and investment. The GFA required the creation of multi-year implementation plans as well as mechanisms for soliciting input from partners and stakeholders up front and throughout the program cycle. This should be a blueprint for future aid programs.
  

• Ensure foreign aid programs align with foreign policy objectives—but redefine those objectives. President Trump is not wrong in stating that foreign aid should align with America’s foreign policy interests. However, those interests should center on improving human security and promoting democratic values. Far too often, US military and diplomatic support to repressive regimes undermines concurrent US foreign aid programs focused on good governance, promoting and protecting human rights, building a vibrant civil society, and investing in economic opportunities. US defense partnerships, arms transfers, intelligence sharing, and training for security services are sometimes used to repress the activists, professionals, and civilians that the US partners with. Propping up authoritarianism and militarism clearly does not align with President Trump and Secretary Rubio’s rhetorical priorities for making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

  
  

• Invest in direct implementation of programs. The Trump administration has highlighted wanting more direct control over aid implementation. One of the best ways to do that is to scale up the US government’s ability to be a direct implementer of aid. Instead of contracting out work to bloated private corporations to lead programs globally, the government could scale up the technical capability and staffing internally required to implement many programs. This would limit “beltway bandits” and put US government employees on the frontlines of aid delivery and programming, allowing for more direct oversight and better international diplomatic presence. To accomplish this, the US government would need to send staff beyond the wire and outside the capital to lead programs and meet with beneficiaries and stakeholders.

Civil Society

• The Urgency of This Current Moment

  • Lean into solidarity and mutual aid. This is a challenging time for most people as average wages stagnate, employment opportunities and social spending disappear, and civic repression escalates. As oligarchy overtly conquers American governance, the rest of us need to lean into tried and tested solidarity strategies. We have many domestic challenges, but sympathetic professionals, communities, and policymakers still need to connect to the global issues that remain intimately tied to the fight at home. To bridge the domestic-international gap, it is critical to establish a joint front to respond to the global crisis exacerbated by the aid freeze:

    • Crowdfund and pool resources. As the US government snatches food, medicine, and other protections from communities on the brink, it is important to seek out and share resources where even small amounts of giving can go a long way in helping our fellow humans abroad survive and simply feed their children.

    • Talk to each other and make connections: We can better understand the impact of our domestic situation on international communities if we set up online networks for direct consultation with people affected by the aid freeze. This will facilitate action by those who want to help, whereby they can identify immediate needs and the best ways of delivering for people.

    • Democratize knowledge. Set up and strengthen informal systems for sharing knowledge. Create pools of practitioners and specialists who can consult on or deliver the specialized services needed for holistic aid response.

We want to hear from you. Are you a former USAID employee? Work at an NGO that has been impacted by US funding cuts? Email us.

If you're interested in writing a piece about the dismantling of USAID, ways to revamp foreign assistance and development programs, or another relevant issue, fill out our submission form and we'll be in touch.

UN Photo/Ari Gaitanis