President Donald Trump’s entry into office has resulted in a massive stream of executive orders. Although Trump has been vocal about the changes he wants to implement, many of the orders, both their content and the speed by which they are being issued, have surprised both voters and opponents. Many of the most radical ones can be linked to Trump and Musk’s so-called “Department of Government Efficiency”, DOGE, which is in large part also the case for the dismantling of USAID. 

USAID, United States Agency for International Development, is the American agency for foreign aid, and one of the biggest aid agencies in the world. Not only are they responsible for helping finance international vaccination programs, combating outbreaks such as HIV or Ebola, and delivering humanitarian aid to people in crisis, but they are also responsible for health and demographic data collection, giving public health information to about half of the world’s countries.  

Since the executive order was signed, almost no aid has been given out by the agency. Even projects exempt from the ban have had issues accessing the money as important digital systems have been shut down. On March 5 however, the Supreme Court ruled to reject Trump’s emergency bid to freeze payments, worth billions, for already completed aid work. The ruling served as a reminder of the restrictions of presidential power, but so far, the organisation continues to be mostly shut down, with no official plan for reviving it.   

To get a better understanding of what is really going on, and how the dismantling might affect global cooperation and the humanitarian situation, I spoke to Ellen Hillbom, professor of economic history, who specializes in sustainability and structural transformation processes in developing countries. 

A big part of understanding development is recognizing its deeply global nature. As Ellen points out, although the concept of development has evolved over time, and today’s Sustainable Development Goals provide goals for all countries, there remains an understanding that there are large parts of the world with countries with such low GDP per capita, they are having difficulties improving their standard of living. In this sense, the new sustainable development agenda is truly global, where, as Ellen says, certain countries need our solidarity. 

• If you have the funds and ability, you have to help those who don’t.  

Even as what kind of aid is needed deeply varies over time and between countries, the fact that countries need to pull together in different ways remains.  

Despite this, Ellen points out that we’ve been witnessing a shift towards prioritizing national interests for quite some time. Aid work has evolved – from engaging with the macro level in the 1960s and ‘70s, focusing on states and how to get sustained growth going, to working primarily with NGOs and grassroots initiatives in the 1980s following the oil crisis. 

In more recent years, Sweden’s approach has further shifted towards viewing aid programs as opportunities to serve national interests – through trade agreements and promotion of Swedish products. While Trump’s ‘America first’ agenda is a very outspoken, and much more radical one, it is not completely new.

Furthermore, while the U.S., but also countries such as Sweden or the UK, are increasingly motivating interest in cutting back on aid, as a way of increasing their military budget, Ellen points out how the states really can do both: 

• To me the answer is very simple: tax the rich.  

• We don’t need to make the choice of pretending that the state budget is a cake that can’t grow. The cake can grow, if we just pull in more funds from those who really have the money.  

Even if many countries manage to grow their state budget or shift their priorities, in an effort to increase their foreign aid and fill the void left behind by the U.S. withdrawal, there will be a long transitional period. Ellen had this to say: 

• I hope [the aid] will continue, but I think there is going to be a lot of casualties in the gap between. Closing down is a decision that the U.S. administration has made from one day to the next, and nobody can come in and fill those cuts within a few days. And in that gap, people are going to die.  

• What is really shocking to me in this, is the complete lack of empathy, of not understanding what these decisions mean for people on the ground. 

In recent years, criticism against the U.S. dominating international cooperation has become increasingly common. People have highlighted how their position gives them an opportunity to push an American agenda, which could make it difficult for smaller or developing countries to make their voices heard. Could the U.S. stepping back, mean bigger space for other countries to influence the direction of international cooperation? While the world could become less dependent on the U.S., Ellen highlights how aid, in its very concrete, grassroot way, is always needed. When you’re on the verge of starvation, you don’t really mind if it says U.S. or China on the bag of rice you’re being given. Furthermore, it’s important to think about what kind of values fill the void that the U.S. leaves behind. How are the changes going to affect requests for democratization, social movements, reproductive health etc.? 

— 

While many have been pointing out USAID’s importance for providing statistical data around the world, Ellen especially highlights how this kind of data is not only crucial for researchers such as herself, but for policy making. If you’re going to have targets for any kind of change, you need to know where you started, and where you ended up, in order to evaluate the process. The U.S. withdrawal from collecting this kind of data is going to hinder the individual countries’ ability to set up their own policy agenda for development. 

Lastly, I wanted to ask Ellen what she thought might be the most evident, direct consequences of the dismantling. She pointed out how the red flags, such as the ones about starvation in Sudan and around the rising AIDS epidemic, have already become visible. As these scandals, revolving around everything from global health to rights and opportunities for minority groups will continue to unravel, she simply predicts: 

• I don’t think [the US government] is going to care. I don’t think [the scandals] are going to change anything, and that’s really, really sad. We are going to be horrified, but for those who could actually change the situation, I don’t think it’s going to affect them.  

• There’s a lack of empathy and a lack of understanding of what it is you’re doing with other countries.  

Me and Ellen end the discussion on a rather grim, but sadly shared by many, note: 

• I think we just have to realize that we can’t depend on the US government for anything.