President Trump’s “America First” agenda claims to prioritize American strength, providing foreign aid only where it advances national interests. However, slashing foreign aid doesn’t make the U.S. stronger — it weakens our global influence, cedes ground to China and Russia, and abandons decades of strategic diplomacy. In deconstructing the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Trump administration undermines a key instrument of American influence and limits the U.S.’s ability to respond to global challenges. 

For over six decades, USAID has been a pillar for American diplomacy, providing humanitarian aid, strengthening global health initiatives, and fostering economic development in struggling nations. Established in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy, USAID exists to assist struggling countries while advancing national security interests and projecting American values abroad. Since then, the U.S. provides more foreign aid than any other country, surmounting $60 billion in 2023, nearly 1 percent of the nation’s budget. From operating the world’s gold-standard famine detection system, Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), to offering vaccinations that prevent the spread of potential pandemics, USAID has played an essential role in preventing global issues from escalating. Thus, when the State Department froze nearly all foreign aid on Trump’s first day in office, many questioned the consequences. This decision, framed as part of the administration’s “America First” strategy, is more than just an abandonment of humanitarian responsibility — it’s a reckless weakening of U.S. global influence as China and Russia expand in developing nations.

Cutting foreign aid does not translate to direct savings for taxpayers as the President has insinuated. The broader economic consequences offset any savings made in cutting a federal department like USAID. Such a cut disrupts trade relationships, weakens emerging markets, and reduces economic opportunities for American businesses. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over 50 percent of American exports go to developing nations, many of which rely on American aid to stabilize their economies. Foreign aid fosters economic partnerships that drive demand for American goods, creating jobs and increasing GDP. For instance, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency generates $85 in exports of U.S. goods and services for every $1 invested in development projects, resulting in over $56 billion in exports and supporting an estimated 300,000 jobs since 1992. If the U.S. cedes its role in these markets, competitors like China and Russia may step in, further undermining American economic influence. 

Moreover, foreign aid acts as a catalyst for national security and economic stability. Studies have shown that economic instability and poverty contribute to regional conflicts, disrupting global supply chains and trade routes. A 2018 Brookings Institution report found that every dollar invested in foreign aid generates an estimated $4 in economic returns through increased trade and security benefits. Additionally, 52 percent of Americans believe that reducing the spread of infectious diseases, which is one of USAID’s many purposes, should be a “top priority.” Given this, is cutting aid truly putting America first, or is it an economically shortsighted move that will cost us more in the long run?

Further, dismantling USAID not only jeopardizes American global influence but also contradicts the core U.S. value of aiding those in need. For decades, the agency has provided critical humanitarian assistance to victims of war, violence, famine, and natural disasters, embodying the country’s commitment to compassion and global stability. Whether it is delivering food aid to drought-stricken regions, funding refugee assistance programs, or providing life-saving medical care in conflict zones, USAID has been instrumental in saving lives and preventing humanitarian crises from escalating into security threats. Abandoning these efforts not only diminishes America's moral leadership but also creates vacuums that bad-faith actors can exploit, exacerbating instability that ultimately affects U.S. interests.

While many allies of Trump have argued that other countries should bear more responsibility, the data shows that the U.S. does not bear more than its fair share. While the U.S. provides a significant amount of aid in absolute terms, its contributions are modest relative to its gross national income (GNI). In 2023, U.S. official development assistance (ODA) amounted to 0.24% of its GNI, whereas countries like Germany (0.82%), Norway (1.09%), Sweden (0.93%), and Turkey (0.62%) exceeded the United Nations’ target of 0.7% of GNI for foreign aid. Thus, this data clearly disproves the narrative that the U.S. provides more foreign aid than its fair share. 

The consequences of dismantling USAID are already unfolding, and the agency's very ability to function is in crisis as the USAID website has gone offline. Cutting USAID isn’t just a blow to humanitarian efforts—it’s an economic and geopolitical miscalculation that weakens America’s global standing. In the long run, abandoning foreign aid won’t save money—it will cost America far more.