Since its establishment in 1961, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided humanitarian aid, supported economic growth, and promoted democratic institutions across the world.
However, on February 3, 2025, Elon Musk, in his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), revealed that President Donald Trump had decided to shut down USAID, deeming it "beyond repair."
The announcement followed weeks of uncertainty, during which several senior USAID officials were placed on leave, employees were directed to work remotely, and access to the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C., was restricted.
Supporters of the decision claim that USAID had grown inefficient, poorly managed, and overly politicized, with Musk describing it as a "ball of worms" and Trump denouncing its leadership as "radical lunatics."
But some critics claim that dismantling USAID could weaken U.S. influence abroad, particularly at a time when global competitors—such as China—are actively expanding their own foreign aid programs.
Currently, although USAID headquarters are closed, and workers are being told to stay home, the Trump administration is moving to merge USAID with the State Department, signaling a significant reduction in its funding and workforce while keeping some aid functions intact.
Newsweek has reached out to experts to assess the significance of USAID and whether it has been an inefficient use of taxpayer funds or a crucial provider of lifesaving aid.
From Dr. Philip Brenner: Shutting Down USAID Is Illegal and Unwise
The Trump administration's attempt to shut down USAID is both illegal and unwise. It is illegal because USAID is a statutory agency. It cannot be closed or moved into the State Department without a new law, which would require an act of Congress.
Its operational funds and the funds it distributes to organizations throughout the world cannot be impounded without congressional approval after the President submits the impoundment request to Congress.
The attempt to shut down USAID is unwise because it unnecessarily will harm millions of people who depend on the medical, food and technical assistance that USAID provides.
The harm would be a significant stain on the moral standing of the United States, which already has one of the lowest per capita aid budgets among the world's richest countries.
It would provide an opening for China to replace the United States as a source of humanitarian support, which could undermine U.S. interests in strategic locations, and it certainly will reduce U.S. influence in the world, which might be destabilizing. A successful U.S. foreign policy must rely on a variety of tools, and denying ourselves a relatively inexpensive one like foreign assistance is penny wise and pound foolish.
Philip Brenner, Emeritus Professor of International Relations and History, American University, Washington, DC.
From Dr. Jeffrey A. Frankel: USAID Plays a Vital Role in Saving and Improving Lives
USAID, like many big organizations, can sometimes be inefficient. But it plays a vital role in improving—and saving—lives around the world and in projecting soft power. If the Administration were to follow through on this idea of shutting down the agency, it would be catastrophic.
Jeffrey A. Frankel, James W. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth, Research Associate, the National Bureau of Economic Research.
From Raj Kumar: Shutting Down USAID Is Disrupting Allies and Benefiting Rivals
If USAID is America's 'soft power', shuttering USAID is 'soft weakness'. There's bipartisan support for real reform and innovation, but a chaotic dismantling of a $40 billion agency will cause enormous disruption for America's closest allies, serving them up on a silver platter to its fiercest competitors.
Raj Kumar, President & Editor-in-Chief, Devex, Washington D.C.
From Evan Cooper: The U.S. Decision to Shut Down USAID May Lead to Higher Death Tolls from Conflict and Diseases
The attempt by the Trump administration to shut down USAID has led to worries about diplomatic fallout and geopolitical consequences. China and Russia do not have the capacity to capitalize on this decision, but neither do U.S. allies and partners have the ability to quickly fill the gap.
The United States halting development and aid funding over the longer term will have global repercussions including higher death tolls from conflicts and diseases, increased displacement and migration, and slower economic development of some regions. While USAID suffers from bureaucratic inefficiencies, abruptly cutting the organization will cause a significant contraction of the international development industry and undermine a useful diplomatic tool for the United States.
Evan Cooper, Research analyst leading the Reimagining US Diplomacy Project, the Stimson Center.
About the writer
Carine Harb is Associate Editor at Newsweek, specializing in the My Turn section and expert-related articles. Based in London, UK, ... Read more