By Alves Manjate, Lecturer in International Law, Maputo Pedagogical University
Maputo (MOZTIMES) - There has been much discussion about the global impact of the dismantling of USAID on the continuity of essential programmes in various regions of the world.
In countries such as Mozambique, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa, there is great concern about the interruption of mother and child health initiatives, and the fight against malaria, tuberculosis and HIV, which have saved millions of lives. In Mali, Afghanistan and Haiti, the future of education and humanitarian support is uncertain. Assistance to refugees in Colombia, Lebanon and Jordan is also at risk, jeopardising regional stability. In Brazil, Indonesia and Peru, biodiversity conservation and drug eradication projects are at risk of being drastically reduced.
Meanwhile, the continuity of humanitarian assistance in conflict zones such as Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine is threatened, placing millions in a situation of extreme vulnerability.
From another perspective, the decision to dismantle USAID represents a seismic shift in the United States’ international projection strategy, breaking with a decades-long tradition in which development assistance was one of the basic pillars of American influence in the world. Created in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, the agency emerged as a strategic response to the geopolitical dispute of the Cold War, acting as a counterweight to growing Soviet influence in developing countries. Since then, USAID has established itself as an indispensable diplomatic tool, promoting economic development, humanitarian assistance and institutional stability, while simultaneously serving to strengthen the United States’ political and economic ties with emerging nations. The decision to dismantle it, therefore, is not merely administrative, but a turning point that could reshape the global geopolitical chessboard and redefine the position of the US as a hegemonic power.
Soft power, a concept formulated by Joseph Nye in 1990 in the book “Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power” and consolidated in 2004 in the book “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, is based on a country’s ability to influence the behaviour of other states without resorting to the use of force or economic coercion. Throughout the 20th century, the United States consolidated its global supremacy by combining military power with unrivalled cultural and diplomatic influence, ensuring that its international presence was as much a matter of strategic domination as ideological attraction. Through investments in humanitarian aid, democracy promotion and academic and economic partnerships, the US has positioned itself as the undisputed leader of the global order. The intended end of USAID represents an abdication from this model, casting doubt on Washington’s ability to maintain its centrality in defining the direction of the world without the mechanisms that have historically sustained its influence.
In 2017, renowned economics professor Jeffrey Sachs pointed out in his book “Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable” that it was soft power, much more than military power, that guaranteed American leadership, turning it into a global moral compass, effectively the “land of dreams”. In fact, important victories in terms of soft power began with the generous Marshall Plan that revived Europe from the ashes of the Second World War and included the opening with Cuba and the agreement with Iran to neutralise its nuclear power.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration’s decision to dissolve USAID is part of the broader context of an isolationist turn, driven by the ideology of “America First”, a philosophy of foreign and economic policy whose central principle is to prioritise the interests and well-being of the United States above international or global considerations. Thus, it is argued that the resources channelled into foreign assistance do not generate direct benefits for American citizens and that the agency’s funding is a waste of capital on projects that do not promote the national interest. Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, who now plays a leading role in the redesign of the federal bureaucracy, has even stated that USAID operates like a criminal organisation, wasting billions on development initiatives that could be redirected to domestic priorities.
However, the impact of foreign assistance transcends immediate budgetary calculations. The cost of USAID represents less than 1% of the US federal budget, an insignificant figure when compared to the magnitude of the influence it provides, and its abolition could deprive the US of one of its most valuable geopolitical projection tools.
Although the Trump administration has declared its intention to close USAID, the feasibility of this decision will face major institutional hurdles. USAID was created through an executive order by President John F. Kennedy and was subsequently consolidated as an independent agency by the US Congress. Therefore, USAID cannot be abolished unilaterally by the executive power.
Even with the current Republican majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, considerable resistance to this measure is expected, especially among law makers who see foreign assistance as an essential component of US national security and global influence.
It is worth noting that, although less drastic and far-reaching than the current ones, there were previous attempts to reduce the budget or restructure USAID during the Obama (2009-2017) and Trump (2017-2021) administrations. However, these initiatives faced strong resistance within the Republican Party itself, showing that foreign assistance is still considered an essential pillar of US foreign policy. Thus, the most viable alternative would be to merge USAID with the State Department, subordinating its operations to US diplomacy, similar to what happened in the UK with the merger of the Department for International Development (DFID) with the Foreign Office in 2020, during Boris Johnson’s government. However, this change would reduce USAID’s independent character and reconfigure the way the US operates its influence abroad.
The intended dissolution of USAID would not only reduce the United States’ capacity for diplomatic intervention, but would also open up space for competing powers to expand their spheres of influence. China, through the Belt and Road Initiative, has already been consolidating its presence in regions traditionally orbited by the United States, investing billions in infrastructure and consolidating strategic political and commercial ties. Russia, for its part, has been expanding its military and economic presence in vulnerable nations, offering logistical and political support to regimes that were previously aligned with American interests. With the vacuum left by the closure of USAID, many countries will have no choice but to seek support from these emerging powers, realigning their foreign policies and diminishing Washington’s influence.
The impact of this decision will be particularly severe in countries that have historically depended on American assistance to sustain social and economic progress. Mozambique, for example, received more than 664 million dollars from USAID in 2023 alone, making it the Portuguese-speaking country that benefited most from the agency. This amount was earmarked for key areas such as health, food security, education and response to natural disasters. Since the USAID office was set up in Maputo in 1984, the agency has played a crucial role in mitigating the effects of poverty and strengthening Mozambican institutions. Its disappearance, therefore, would not only jeopardise ongoing projects, but also threaten setbacks in sectors that are essential to the country’s stability.
Ultimately, the fate of USAID will depend on the balance of forces in Congress and the willingness of American society to continue investing in foreign assistance as a tool of global power. If the proposal to dismantle USAID goes ahead, the United States will be abandoning one of the central pillars of its foreign policy, reconfiguring its presence in the world in a way that is still unpredictable. The major question is whether, by giving up one of the most effective power projection instruments it has ever built, the US is not actually becoming less influential and more vulnerable in an increasingly competitive international arena. (MOZTIMES)
