The Dismantling of USAID: The end of the UN-NATO and Multilateralism.

The Trump administration is actively dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), marking a significant shift in America’s approach to foreign assistance. The closure of USAID’s headquarters, the removal of senior officials, and the agency’s website going offline suggest a coordinated effort to either absorb or significantly reduce its role. This mirrors the United Kingdom’s 2020 decision to merge the Department for International Development (DFID) into the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), a move widely criticized for prioritizing geopolitical strategy over humanitarian assistance.

Trump’s Assault on USAID

The current push to dismantle USAID under Trump’s second administration has unfolded rapidly. Senior security officials at USAID were placed on leave after resisting unauthorized access to classified information by representatives of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an entity led by Elon Musk. This was followed by the abrupt closure of USAID’s headquarters, forcing employees to work remotely, while its website was taken offline. Trump and Musk have openly declared their intent to shut down the agency, signaling a decisive break from traditional U.S. foreign aid policy.

The UK’s DFID Merger as a Precedent

The UK’s decision in 2020 to merge DFID with the Foreign Office to create the FCDO was justified as an effort to streamline aid delivery and align foreign assistance with national interests. However, in practice, the merger led to massive budget cuts, diminished oversight, and a shift in focus away from poverty alleviation toward political and strategic objectives. Reports have shown that UK aid is now more closely linked to trade, security, and diplomatic leverage rather than humanitarian needs.

Trump’s moves with USAID appear to follow a similar trajectory—reducing the independence of humanitarian aid programs in favor of a more transactional, politically driven model. By shifting USAID’s functions under the direct control of the State Department or another bureaucratic entity, the administration may seek to tie aid more explicitly to U.S. foreign policy objectives rather than responding to global crises based on humanitarian needs.

Implications of USAID’s Dismantling

1. Weakened Global Humanitarian Leadership – USAID has long been the backbone of U.S. disaster relief, public health efforts, and economic development in fragile states. Its dismantling could erode U.S. influence in global humanitarian affairs, ceding ground to competitors like China and the EU. I know it's not about this....but the reality is that aid has always been politicized.

2. Aid as a Political Tool – Just as the FCDO has shifted UK aid to serve diplomatic priorities, Trump’s efforts suggest a future where U.S. foreign assistance will be leveraged as a tool for rewarding allies and punishing adversaries rather than addressing humanitarian needs. Against the Humanitarian Principles.

3. Disruptions in Crisis Response – USAID has played a pivotal role in responding to global emergencies, from natural disasters to pandemics. Its dismantling will likely disrupt rapid response capabilities, affecting vulnerable populations worldwide. Together with ECHO, BHA is the top 2 donor, we are talking millions of dollars to help millions of people when more people are displaced today than ever.

4. Loss of Institutional Knowledge and Expertise – As seen in the UK following the DFID-FCDO merger, dismantling USAID may lead to the departure of experienced personnel, further weakening the effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid. To the tune of 60,000-100,000 people potentially.

The Way Forward for International Assistance

If the goal is to reform international assistance while maintaining effectiveness, a more strategic and measured approach is required:

1. Strengthen Community-Led Development – The shift away from traditional top-down aid models presents an opportunity to reinforce localization efforts and community-led initiatives. Development actors and humanitarians have long advocated for decolonizing aid by shifting power and resources directly to local organizations and affected communities.

2. Preserve an Independent Aid Institution – While efficiency is important, merging or dismantling USAID would weaken its ability to operate effectively. A reformed USAID, rather than its elimination, would allow for accountability while preserving its humanitarian mission.

3. Reaffirm Congressional Oversight – Congress has historically pushed back against deep cuts to foreign aid. Lawmakers should demand transparency and legal constraints on executive actions that dismantle vital aid institutions.

4. Emphasize Locally Owned Solutions – Rather than imposing foreign-driven solutions, international assistance should prioritize direct funding and decision-making power for local actors, allowing communities to design and implement their own responses to crises.

5. Align Aid with Long-Term Global Stability – Rather than using foreign aid as a transactional tool, the U.S. should reinforce its commitment to strategic humanitarian engagement, ensuring that assistance remains driven by need rather than short-term political interests.

6. Enhance Public-Private Partnerships – If efficiency is the concern, rather than dismantling USAID, the U.S. should explore innovative models that involve private sector collaboration to improve aid delivery and effectiveness.

The dismantling of USAID is a profound shift in American foreign aid policy that parallels the UK’s controversial DFID-FCDO merger. If history is any guide, gutting the U.S. government’s primary humanitarian aid agency will lead to diminished global influence, weaker crisis response capabilities, and a more politically driven approach to aid. However, this crisis presents an opportunity to embrace localization and community-led development models, which have been gaining traction for years. The future of international assistance should focus on reform, not elimination, ensuring that humanitarian aid remains an effective tool for global stability, resilience, and development while shifting power to those directly affected by aid programs.

Some questions:

Where is the UN in all of this?

If Trump’s approach to dismantling USAID is any indication, he may also be setting the stage to defund and dismantle the United Nations, just as he has suggested doing with NATO. His administration has repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of multilateral institutions, portraying them as bureaucratic obstacles that constrain U.S. sovereignty and drain American resources. While NATO has been a key pillar of U.S. and European security for decades, Trump has suggested that member nations should fund their own defense or risk losing U.S. protection, effectively threatening to withdraw from the alliance. This same logic could now be applied to the United Nations, where the U.S. is the largest financial contributor. By cutting off funding and delegitimizing its role, Trump could attempt to undermine the UN’s ability to function, forcing a shift from a rules-based international order to a system where nationalist, transactional diplomacy replaces multilateral cooperation.

Historically, attempts to weaken or abandon global institutions have led to major instability and conflict. The League of Nations failed in the 1930s because leading powers, including the U.S., refused to fully commit to it, allowing aggressive states like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to act unchecked. Similarly, after World War I, isolationist policies and a lack of international coordination contributed to the conditions that led to global war. If the U.S. were to withdraw from the UN or NATO, it would create a massive power vacuum that rival nations like China and Russia would be eager to fill. China has already expanded its influence within UN agencies, using its position to shape global trade rules and development policies in ways that favor authoritarian governance models. Meanwhile, Russia has long sought to weaken Western alliances and would view the decline of NATO or the UN as a strategic victory, allowing it to expand its military and political reach without coordinated Western resistance.

The global implications of such a move would be severe and destabilizing. Without NATO, European security would become fractured, forcing individual nations to either drastically increase military spending or seek new security agreements, potentially with China or other emerging powers. Without the UN, diplomatic conflict resolution mechanisms would erode, making international crises harder to contain. Smaller nations that depend on U.S.-backed UN initiatives for security, aid, and economic development would be left vulnerable, forcing them to align with alternative powers. The result would be a more fragmented, unstable world order, where international law holds less weight and regional conflicts escalate unchecked. History has shown that when global institutions are dismantled, the world does not become more stable or secure—it becomes more dangerous, divided, and prone to large-scale conflict. If Trump pursues this path, the long-term consequences could be catastrophic, not just for global stability, but for America’s role as a world leader.