On July 1, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) officially shut down its foreign assistance programs. With this move, the Trump administration, backed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has executed a massive shift in America’s global role — from a leader in humanitarian aid to a country that now prioritizes strict self-interest and trade.
For decades, USAID symbolized American outreach. It delivered food during famines, funded HIV treatments in Africa, and supported emergency shelters after earthquakes. Now, those lifelines are gone. Rubio has argued that “aid must empower countries to become self-reliant, not dependent.” Under the new model, future U.S. support will flow mainly through trade and investment incentives, not direct humanitarian or development aid.
The transition is sweeping. More than 80% of USAID’s budget had already been frozen. As of July 1, thousands of staff and contractors are out of work. The State Department now oversees only limited emergency responses, such as certain disaster relief and disease prevention programs like PEPFAR.
The fallout is immediate and brutal. In eastern Congo, for example, a major USAID contract providing post-rape emergency kits to over 100,000 women was abruptly cancelled, worsening an already dire humanitarian crisis. Public health experts warn of a potential global disaster: a Lancet study estimates up to 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under five.
Critics argue that these cuts go far beyond cost-saving. Foreign aid has long been less than 1% of the U.S. budget, but its reach has been strategic. By fighting diseases and stabilizing fragile states, aid often helped prevent conflicts and curbed refugee flows. Cutting it not only puts lives at risk abroad but may also weaken America’s soft power and expose it to health and security threats.
Supporters of the shutdown see it differently. Rubio and Trump administration officials insist that aid in its past form “fueled corruption” and encouraged reliance. They now want to channel funds to initiatives that “benefit U.S. interests first,” focusing on economic partnerships and trade deals instead of direct grants or health programs.
The U.S. decision leaves a vacuum that will likely be filled by rivals. China, Russia, and other powers have been expanding their influence through infrastructure and investment in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. With America stepping back, those players gain an open field to deepen relationships and shape local policies.
The legal future of the decision is still unfolding. Some lawsuits argue that dismantling a congressionally established agency exceeds executive authority. But for now, the administration has moved ahead, and millions abroad face the consequences.
