The Retreat of American Soft Power: The Case of USAID
Donald Trump’s first month back in the White House has been marked by a flurry of both abrupt and aggressive foreign policy decisions. The infamous Steve Bannon phrase “flood the zone”, echoes particularly loud, when as of late February Trump has already signed over 70 executive orders - a record number for a President’s first 100 days in office in over forty years. Included in this, signed on inauguration day itself, was a 90 day total freeze of US Foreign Assistance - which for years has been the subject of public lambastment from the President, previously referring to the agency USAID as run by “radical left lunatics”, whom he accused of mass fraud and stealing billions of dollars. Lo behold, less than a month into his second term, the entire future of the agency at large has been cast into doubt. The immediate fallout from the freeze has been swift and brutal, sending shockwaves through the wider international aid community - but it is not just about USAID. Rather, this freeze should be understood as a preview of what is to come next under this administration, a test case for broader restructuring of the federal government and a radical reshaping of America’s role at home and abroad for the last seventy-plus years.
USAID was established in 1961, under President John F Kennedy via executive order, following congressional passing of the Foreign Assistance Act, which mandated the creation of an official agency to administer economic aid. The agency reflected a modernised double-pronged approach to American foreign policy. In addition to administering humanitarian aid programmes abroad on behalf of the American government, the goal of the agency served to simultaneously counter Soviet influence abroad during the Cold war, and advance American soft power through the promotion of socio-economic development, based on the emerging fundamental neoliberal principle that American security was directly linked to the stability and economic advancement of other nations. It later acquired independence as an agency operating both within the executive branch and outside of the State Department. Since its inception, USAID has constituted a foremost tool of American soft power, leading US humanitarian efforts globally, and playing a crucial role in coordinating responses to and mitigating effects of international emergencies.
The scope of USAID in terms of both global presence and its activities is vast. Primarily overseas, it had a workforce of over 10,000, and in the fiscal year of 2023 alone funded roughly $40 billion worth of combined appropriations, supporting and funding programmes in over 130 countries, and 29 regions. Its operations range from health, humanitarian, economic development, and democracy-promotion efforts, to alliance building partnerships. In 2023, the biggest contribution area was ‘macroeconomic foundation for growth’, the majority of which was direct monetary support to USAID’s top recipient, Ukraine, which received a total of $16.6 billion (37%) of aid funding, followed by Ethiopia, Jordan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Yemen, amongst others.
The sheer abruptness with which the freeze has been enforced has had a devastating rippling effect of complete destabilisation to this over 6 decades-old institution, inviting costly litigation, mass job cuts, and jeopardising critical humanitarian projects - upon which for the millions of people who depend on USAID, this is not just a bureaucratic manoeuvre - it is life threatening. In the immediate days following the executive order, “stop work” orders were issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to aid groups, non governmental organisations (NGOs), and contractors alike. While limited “waivers” were provided for certain humanitarian programmes primarily concerned with medical services, food, shelter, subsidence - in accordance with what seems to be the case throughout many of these orders - they were accompanied with little in the way of clarity and as such, no money has actually been moved, forcing a wave of mass layoffs and disruption to these essential food distribution, medical support, and educational programmes. This disruption has meant many US-funded organisations have had both new programmes frozen, as well as current activities on the ground shuttered with no further information or guidance.
For instance, one of USAIDs most infamous, and praised projects, the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), for over two decades now has served as the backbone of HIV/AIDS relief globally, and has been attributed with reducing AIDS related deaths by 68% worldwide. While select PEPFAR activities were applicable to waivers, others - notably abortion, family planning, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programmes that do not align with this administration’s values were frozen, resulting in clinics turning patients away and shutting down the database systems responsible for tracking infections and treatments. Former USAID official under the Obama administration, Jeremy Konyndyk, said “to be very explicit about what is being turned off, the sort of things that are being stopped are programmes that support 20 million people on lifesaving HIV treatment right now”. Not only does this put these individuals dependent on USAID funded medical assistance at risk, it contributes to the destabilisation of an already fragile health system, by increasing risks of new infections, and drug resistance.
Beyond this humanitarian cost, the freeze has significant geopolitical implications. Such actions, and the speed at which they are being taken also constitute a strategic blunder from an American perspective, eroding decades of trust and partnerships built with recipient countries, while signalling a clear message of unreliability in the international sphere. This not only weakens American influence in terms of soft power - of which USAID has served as a pillar of - it also undermines the international community's willingness to collaboratively support and engage with American interests, notably in competing with other global powers such as China. Importantly, American foreign policy does not occur in a vacuum, and while Trump reevaluates the US’s international commitments, China - which has for the last twenty years been rapidly expanding development programmes, with its ‘Going Global’ strategy, most notably in the African continent, will be more than happy to step up and fill the void. In the eight years between 2013 and 2021, China invested $679 billion in global infrastructure, almost nine times as much as the US invested over the same period. Similar patterns are starting to emerge elsewhere, as China continues to strengthen economic ties, recently overtaking the US as the leading trade partner in several Latin American countries. In retreating from these regions where historically the US has held economic and diplomatic sway, it is inadvertently deepening China’s foothold, both in areas of competition and collaboration. Clearly, Chinese initiatives and projects that promote global good, such as climate, health, disaster relief, etc are of benefit to the US too, but here America should be attempting to forge bonds of collaboration, not withdraw completely and leave it up to others.
In light of these impacts, both domestic and international, one may question why it is this administration has been quite so critical of USAID efforts. In Washington, the freeze is part of a broader push for massive spending cuts, and gutting ‘wasteful’, overseas spending - spearheaded by unelected billionaire Elon Musk’s newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOJE), tasked by Trump himself with direct oversight over these budget cuts. According to the executive order, “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values”. However, to put into perspective, while USAID funding constitutes almost a third of total global aid efforts, as a share of the federal budget this contribution ranks much lower than other top aid providers, such as Germany, Japan, and the UK, whose percentage of aid as a share of GDP all rank above 0.4%. In contrast, foreign aid makes up just 0.2% of the US’s GDP share, and less than 1% of the Federal Budget. Paradoxically, in contrast, extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts of $400 billion, would equate to roughly over nine times USAID’s budget each year - penny-wise and pound-foolish.
It thus appears clear, this freeze is not just about cost-cutting, it is deeply ideological. Specifically, it seems to mirror exactly the Project 2025 pledges to gut Foreign aid spending and fulfil the President’s agenda of America First. This freeze represents one of the first manifestations of this philosophy, but it would be naive to think it will be the last. Rather, some have argued it is precisely the relatively low-profile of Foreign aid, and the degree of separation and disconnect between USAID’s activities and American peoples’ knowledge of it, that made it a convenient test-run for future dismantling of federal agencies government wide. The question thus becomes how far this philosophy will go in Trump’s endeavour to slash $2 trillion of federal spending, as eyes turn to the Department of Education, Department of Labour, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration, amongst others, whose fate is seeming increasingly tenuous.
Finally, in this attempt to test and chart out the boundaries of executive power, another alarming pattern has come to surface, Trump’s willingness to sidestep Congress. Since USAID is an independent and statutory agency, some legal experts have pointed out that Trump did not have the authority to rescind federal law via executive order, rather it required a congressional act which he did not have. This is not the first time Trump has tried pushing the limits of executive power, many will recall when in 2019 he famously froze $400 million of military assistance to Ukraine, which was later deemed a violation of Federal law. Lack of congressional input in this freeze, accompanied with Trump’s existing history of blatant disregard for legislative power sends a worrying signal pertaining to this administration's commitment, or lack thereof, to spending laws, and its willingness to bend and break both established norms and in some cases federal laws for its own ends. No president in history has unilaterally flattened an entire agency enshrined in law at the drop of a hat, let alone appointed their wealthiest donor to carry it out with little to no oversight. Such a manoeuvre not only undermines the importance of expertise over personal or corporate interests, it puts at risk the very stability of rule of law and American democracy.
The entire system of checks and balances that underpins American governance and the constitution is premised on the three branches pushing back on, and scrutinising each other. In a context whereby congressional power is being overlooked, and Republicans are largely refraining from speaking out in light of Musk’s threats to funnell millions of dollars into primaries against those that oppose the executive on anything, such a system appears entirely dysfunctional. If they continue down this path, it may not be farfetched to suggest, as Republican former head of USAID Andrew Natsios has, that the US could be headed for a constitutional crisis.
What is clear at present, is a total recalibration under this administration of America’s role and priorities both at home and abroad. The freeze on USAID was one of the first manifestations of this reorientation, but most certainly will not be the last. Rather, the decision should be understood as a harbinger of broader restructuring of the federal government and spending to come, setting a dangerous precedent both for willingness to undermine established institutions, and centralise power in the executive. If successful, serious questions will be raised about just how far this administration is willing to go in testing its boundaries, and the wider lasting effects this will have on the future of American governance and its geopolitical role in the world.
Image courtesy of Kayla Bartowski via Getty Images, ©2025. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
