The U.S. government has made drastic cuts to foreign aid programs, eliminating 83% of the initiatives run by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This move follows a six-week review ordered by the Trump administration, aiming to redefine what counts as serving U.S. national interests. The remaining aid programs will now be managed by the State Department, marking a significant shift in the way American assistance is delivered globally.
On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the cuts, revealing that out of 6,200 USAID programs, only about 1,000 will continue. This restructuring effectively erases decades of work in humanitarian aid, economic development, and global health initiatives. The move aligns with former President Trump’s executive order from January 20, which called for a review of foreign aid spending. According to the administration, many of these programs were pushing forward a liberal global agenda that did not align with American interests.
Rubio credited the cuts to the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), a task force led by billionaire Elon Musk, which worked closely with government officials to identify programs for elimination. “Our hard-working staff and DOGE teams deserve credit for this long-overdue and historic reform,” Rubio posted on social media platform X (formerly Twitter). Musk, in response, expressed his support, calling the move “tough, but necessary.”
However, the decision has sparked controversy, as it dismantles longstanding bipartisan efforts to use foreign aid as a tool for diplomacy, economic growth, and regional stability. Experts argue that aid programs have historically helped prevent conflicts, improve global health, and strengthen America’s influence abroad. The cuts could have far-reaching consequences, particularly for vulnerable populations who rely on U.S. assistance for survival.
According to reports, the elimination process was swift and left little room for detailed evaluations of each program. Aid organizations received mass termination notices via email, and contracts were abruptly canceled. The New York Times reported that internal disagreements within the administration became evident during a recent cabinet meeting, where Musk and Rubio reportedly clashed over the extent of the cuts. While Trump defended Rubio’s actions, saying he was doing a “great job,” the friction between officials highlighted the immense influence Musk wields within the administration.
One of the most pressing concerns is the impact on global health initiatives. Documents reviewed by ProPublica suggest that top USAID health officials had repeatedly warned Rubio and other decision-makers about the human cost of the cuts. Their projections estimated that eliminating these programs could lead to the deaths of up to 166,000 people from malaria, leave one million children untreated for severe malnutrition, and result in 200,000 additional polio cases over the next decade.
Even some programs that were expected to be spared, such as emergency nutrition assistance for starving children and clean water projects in war-torn areas, reportedly received termination notices. Humanitarian groups have expressed frustration, stating that the decision contradicts previous assurances given by government officials.
The legality of these cuts is also under scrutiny. Critics argue that since many of these programs were funded by Congress, they cannot be unilaterally terminated by the executive branch. Several lawsuits have already been filed, challenging the legality of the administration’s actions. The State Department, facing multiple legal battles, initially stated that over 90% of USAID programs would be eliminated. However, Rubio’s announcement mentioned an 83% cut, leaving questions about how the numbers were calculated.
The abrupt shutdown has had immediate consequences. Thousands of aid workers, both in the U.S. and overseas, have lost their jobs. Many remain stranded in foreign countries, awaiting payments for back wages and travel expenses to return home. Contractors who had agreements with USAID now face significant financial losses, as the government has allegedly failed to honor billions of dollars in contracts.
Republicans have generally supported the move, advocating for a narrower definition of U.S. national interests when it comes to foreign aid. They argue that aid should be used more strategically, rather than funding broad humanitarian efforts. However, Democratic lawmakers and aid organizations have pushed back, warning that such drastic cuts could destabilize fragile regions and damage America’s global reputation.
The long-term effects of this decision remain uncertain, but the immediate fallout is clear: thousands of jobs lost, critical humanitarian programs shut down, and a significant shift in how the U.S. engages with the world through aid. Whether these changes will ultimately benefit the country or cause more harm remains a subject of heated debate.
