from Caiden Heaphy
Within hours of his inauguration, President Trump began his second term in the manner he knows best, by rapidly sowing chaos through an executive action, which fundamentally upended American foreign policy, and left human rights advocates at a loss for words.
Trump’s decision to suspend nearly all ongoing and future American foreign aid programs (Executive Order 14169 “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid”), culminates a dramatic policy shift in a party that has historically celebrated foreign assistance as the cornerstone of US soft-power by promoting democracy, security, and economic prosperity for communities in need around the world. According to his Order, Trump determined that such programs were no longer “aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values,” and “serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.”
In the days that would follow, the Administration cemented its intent to dismantle USAID, the primary mechanism for distributing foreign aid globally, by putting nearly all employees on indefinite leave, and firing much of the rest of the USAID’s approximately 10,000 employees worldwide; resulting in the impoundment of billions of dollars in development projects. Two months later, the impact of Trump’s Order is clear: according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 83% of USAID’s programs were terminated following the temporary suspension of funding. While his actions have drawn protests from Democrats and interventions from federal courts, the impact of these objections have been limited at best. In the absence of serious resistance from Congress, Trump’s policy will continue to have significant consequences for the international human rights community and for the millions of vulnerable persons they wish to help.
(Comparison of USAID Obligations 2023-2025)
Despite attempts to incorporate exclusions to the Order, the human rights impact of Trump’s actions and the ensuing uncertainty have been swift. The freezing of USAID has already had a critical impact on the ability to provide life-saving HIV/AIDs treatment and services. According to the Health Policy Watch, South Africa, with over 8 million people diagnosed with HIV (over 16% of the adult population), “all 44 South African HIV programmes that receive money from the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through USAID have seen their aid terminated.” Furthermore, dozens of hospitals and clinics have been forced to close, including 38 clinics that treat displaced persons from war-torn regions in Myanmar and Southern Africa. According to Oxfam, “[USAID] cuts will most severely affect people in areas enduring conflict and dire emergencies, and where people are suffering in the worst forms of poverty. Many displaced people will face unacceptably high risks of water-borne diseases (such as cholera) in refugee camps.” Already, aid partners in the Democratic Republic of Congo have been unable to provide clean water and medicine to the over 100,000 people fleeing escalating violence by M23 rebels in the Lubero Territory. As aid partners struggle to fill the gaps left by US funding, some of the world’s most vulnerable communities are forced to carry the weight of Trump’s policy shift.
USAID was established in 1961 to provide assistance and aid for countries affected by conflict, hunger, poverty, and or disease. Such programs were devised to alleviate humanitarian crises and to promote development according to US strategic and economic interests. In 2023, USAID was responsible for administering over $40 billion, or roughly 1% of the US federal budget. In addition to providing commodities such as food, clean water, and medicine, USAID also provides non-military equipment, capacity-building technical expertise, as well as funding for the development of water, energy, and transport infrastructure. In fact, only a small percentage of USAID funding is actually distributed directly to US allies and international organizations in the form of direct loans or general budget support. US foreign assistance is distributed in cooperation with American firms, NGOs, nonprofits, international organizations, private contractors, and foreign governments.
The Trump Administration’s push to dismantle USAID and restructure U.S. foreign aid stems from a combination of ideological, political, and strategic motivations. Conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Renewing America have long criticized USAID for inefficiencies, particularly regarding oversight of project spending, high overhead costs, and the disproportionate “cost of doing business” relative to project outcomes. During Trump’s first term, his administration attempted to streamline USAID’s operations through the “Transformation Reform” initiative, aiming to reduce bureaucracy and emphasize a transition toward “self-reliance.” However, efforts to cut funding for the agency faced bipartisan resistance in Congress. The appointment of Trump-aligned officials, such as Russell Vought—an outspoken USAID critic, leading contributor to Project 2025, and founder of the right-wing Center for Renewing America— as Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), signals a renewed effort to restructure or even dismantle the agency to align with conservative policy goals.
Beyond administrative efficiency, USAID has also been increasingly targeted for its perceived alignment with Democratic and progressive priorities, particularly under the Biden Administration. Critics argue that USAID promotes a “radical left-wing agenda” or “woke” diplomacy, citing programs related to reproductive health (access to abortion and contraception), LGBTQ protections, diversity and inclusion, and climate policy, which supposedly promote secularization over “religious freedom”. Conservative factions claim that these initiatives reflect Democratic partisan interests and the influence of liberal philanthropic organizations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. By dismantling USAID, the Trump administration seeks not only to remove what it sees as institutionalized ideological bias but also to weaken potential bureaucratic opposition, clear out “liberal” civil servants, and reshape U.S. foreign aid according to conservative principles, with reduced Congressional oversight.
Strategically, dismantling USAID fits within a broader scorched earth approach aimed at consolidating executive power and reshaping U.S. foreign policy to maximize leverage in international negotiations. By eliminating or fundamentally restructuring the agency, the administration could sideline Democratic-aligned policy initiatives, disrupt the existing foreign aid framework, and rebuild it in a way that prioritizes Trump’s geopolitical and economic objectives. Additionally, this move fulfills a key campaign promise to Trump’s base, reinforcing his commitment to dismantling what conservatives see as entrenched bureaucratic resistance and globalist influence within U.S. foreign policy institutions.
According to a memo reportedly circulated by Trump administration aides, the proposed restructuring of USAID involves dismantling the agency and merging its responsibilities with other existing aid structures, including the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Development Finance Corporation (DFC). The new entity, tentatively named the U.S. Agency for International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA), would function as a non-independent subsidiary of the State Department. This restructuring would effectively eliminate congressional oversight over foreign aid distribution and funding priorities, granting the executive branch greater control. The memo outlines that foreign aid “should advance economic opportunities for American companies, enhance [American] national security, and strengthen US influence on the global stage”.
The proposed reforms would emphasize flexibility, efficiency, and transparency in administering foreign aid, with stricter accountability measures for aid partners and a reduction in “indirect cost rates.” Funding would prioritize private-sector and nonprofit organizations, in particular religious organizations, over established partners and UN agencies, and programs deemed costly with “low returns” would be eliminated. The IHA’s scope would be narrowly focused on humanitarian assistance, disaster response, global health aid, and food security, shifting away from broader development programs. Key objectives include “promoting democracy”, “religious freedom”, “conflict prevention”, “civil society”, and “women’s empowerment”, while also leveraging foreign aid for strategic investments in trade, energy, critical minerals, infrastructure, technology, and innovation. Notably, foreign aid would be explicitly aligned with U.S. foreign policy goals, including countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative. In the absence of Congressional oversight, however, it is difficult to assess how Trump and future Administrations will define and implement such priorities.
Longterm, the human rights consequences of Trump’s proposed USAID policy shift, would be significant, particularly for marginalized communities and conflict-affected regions. The reduction or elimination of programs providing access to reproductive health services, especially contraception and abortion, disproportionately impacts women in low-income countries, limiting their autonomy and increasing maternal health risks. LGBTQ projects that promote awareness and equal rights have seen nearly all of their USAID funding terminated, undermining protections for LGBTQ individuals in regions where discrimination is pervasive. Additionally, U.S. support for Ukraine and Palestine has been nearly eliminated in alignment with the Administration’s foreign policy, affecting humanitarian assistance, reconstruction efforts, and civilian protections in these conflict zones. As a primary donor, the shift away from funding international organizations (IOs) like UN agencies and the World Health Organization (WHO) has weakened coordinated global responses to crises, from refugee assistance to climate resilience. Overall, these changes reduce protections for vulnerable populations, erode human rights progress, and align foreign aid more closely with political and economic interests rather than humanitarian needs.
Regardless of whether Trump is successful in his restructuring of USAID, the impact of his initial suspension and subsequent termination of USAID funding, which has resulted in a reduction of nearly 50% of global aid, has already had dire consequences for the international humanitarian sector. The financial uncertainty created by the Administration, who is also withholding millions in owed payments, has been insurmountable for many international organizations and NGOs. According to a recent survey of international aid groups operating in 160 countries, half of the organizations have been forced to lay off staff or place them on indefinite leave, resulting in the abrupt closure of field operation, leaving vulnerable communities stranded. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), which initially had $153 million cancelled by USAID, was forced to end humanitarian aid operations for refugees and displaced persons in 20 countries. Similarly, War Child, which provides education, mental support, and emergency aid for displaced children, has halted operations in Syria and Uganda, as well as services affecting over 400,000 kids in Lebanon. According to experts from the Center of Global Development, mass layoffs across the industry have eliminated “decades of accumulated expertise, institutional knowledge and established networks that are crucial for effective aid delivery,” which, if possible, will take “years” to recover from.
Unfortunately, Trump’s dismantling of USAID is unlikely to be overturned without congressional intervention, despite it being a direct violation of congressional authority. While the President lacks the legal power to unilaterally abolish, consolidate, or reallocate USAID funds without congressional authorization, Republican lawmakers have shown only mild concern over these moves, making legislative pushback unlikely to receive sufficient momentum. Public support for cuts to USAID, driven by concerns over high domestic costs of living, government debt spending, and skepticism toward foreign aid, further weakens efforts by Democrats wary of their own reelection prospects. While legal challenges may arise, litigation has been slow, and federal courts have struggled to enforce their rulings against open resistance from the Administration. Ultimately, even if legal or congressional actions succeed in overturning aspects of Trump’s policy, the damage—both in terms of disrupted programs and weakened institutional capacity—will have long-lasting consequences, making a full recovery for USAID to its pre-Trump status highly unlikely.
In a time in which the demand for humanitarian aid remains high, the international community will be forced to face nearly impossible decisions as to which groups are more deserving of assistance. This, in combination with recent cuts to foreign aid by governments in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, France, and the UK, will dramatically affect responses to global crises and peace resolution efforts for years to come.
