In line with his ‘America First’ policy, Donald Trump has decided to close USAID, the cornerstone of the US global aid mechanism. This move, undoubtedly weakening Washington’s global influence, has sparked curiosity about its impact on Africa. The elimination of USAID, which has been intervening in humanitarian crises and running health and development projects across the continent for years, will not only limit U.S. foreign policy options but also has the to change the geopolitical balance in Africa While huge gaps are emerging in many areas from food security to health programs, from economic development to security policies, who will fill this gap and how? How will global and regional actors such as China, the European Union, Russia, and Turkey shape their growing influence on the continent?
The Establishment of USAID and Its Role in U.S. Foreign Policy
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was founded in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy to consolidate U.S. foreign aid policies under a single umbrella. Officially operating to support humanitarian aid, development, and democratization projects, the agency has been one of the key instruments of American foreign policy since the Cold War. Over time, USAID became associated not only with development projects but also with political and military interventions aimed at protecting Washington’s strategic interests. This situation has led to debates about USAID acting as an extension of diplomatic and intelligence activities in some countries.
USAID and the CIA: Covert Operations and Interventions
The connection between USAID and the CIA has been a well-known fact for many years. There are numerous examples of the agency’s funds and projects being used for intelligence operations in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. In the 1960s, USAID indirectly supported counter-revolutionary operations against Fidel Castro in Cuba, financing opposition movements and channeling resources to propaganda activities led by the CIA. In 1973, USAID was claimed to have played a direct role in the overthrow of the Salvador Allende government in Chile; it was revealed that the agency indirectly financed members of the military in the country and was part of policies to destabilize the Chilean economy. However, USAID’s official reports at the time framed its activities in Chile as primarily funding “public health” initiatives.
Similarly, programs in Nicaragua during the 1980s that assisted the Contras in their fight against the Sandinista government were officially billed as ‘development and civil society projects’, but in reality were part of covert operations run by the CIA. Agency funds were allegedly used to supply arms and train rebel groups. In the 2000s, the agency During the 2000s, USAID supported anti-governmental civil society organizations in Venezuela and Bolivia and carried out projects to weaken the rule of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.
One of USAID’s most controversial operations was its financing of a fake social media platform called ZunZuneo in Cuba. The agency planned to use the platform to mobilize Cuban youth in anti-government sentiment and launch a mass protest movement. However, when the project was exposed, the debate about USAID’s direct involvement in regime change initiatives flared up again.
In this regard, the Trump administration claimed that USAID was run by ‘radical elements’ and argued that the closure of the agency was necessary to reduce federal expenditures and encourage the domestic use of critical resources instead of transferring them abroad for ‘woke’ dreams through foreign aid. Within this context, the Trump government reduced the number of USAID staff from 10,000 to 290, largely ending the agency’s functionality. However, the oversight of $8.2 billion in unspent humanitarian aid funds remained uncertain, raising concerns about the potential misuse of these resources.
Trump’s move against USAID should not be seen solely as an attempt to cut federal spending; it was also part of his broader struggle against the U.S. establishment and traditional foreign policy approaches. Trump arguing that global aid mechanisms are being used by elites in Washington to create space for the US’s strategic rivals, has seen institutions such as USAID as unnecessary bureaucratic structures that harm American interests within the framework of his ‘America First’ policy and presented the closure of the agency as a natural extension of this policy.
The Impact of USAID’s Shutdown on Humanitarian Aid in Africa
The closure of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) marks a significant turning point for humanitarian aid efforts in Africa and the broader geopolitical competition among major powers. For years, the agency’s development projects and humanitarian assistance have played a critical role in healthcare, education, and food security, particularly in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Liberia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda. For example, USAID spent more than $12 billion in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2024, much of which was directed to humanitarian assistance and health. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was the largest recipient, with $1.3 billion, followed by Ethiopia and Sudan.
In South Africa, the PEPFAR program is vital in the fight against HIV/AIDS, reaching millions of people with USAID funding. By 2023, PEPFAR had provided approximately $440 million in funding to South Africa, representing about 17% of the country’s total HIV/AIDS program budget. Thanks to this support, there are now 5.5 million people on HIV treatment in South Africa. In Somalia and the Sahel region, USAID’s food security projects contributed significantly to the prevention of famine and humanitarian crises. With USAID’s withdrawal, health care, education, and food security projects in these regions could be severely disrupted.
However, USAID’s activities have not been limited to humanitarian aid; the agency has also been accused of pressuring local governments, influencing economic and political decisions, and even indirectly supporting military coups in certain African countries.
Although USAID’s activities in Egypt are formally characterized by democracy promotion and civil society support, it has been alleged to have played an important role during the process leading to the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi’s government in 2013. Since 1975, USAID has provided approximately $30 billion in funding to Egypt, focusing on independent media, civil society, and democratic governance projects, but this support has been claimed to have strengthened anti-Muslim Brotherhood movements in theEspecially the US-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was alleged to have funded opposition groups and encouraged anti-Morsi demonstrations. Here, the relationship between USAID and NED is interesting. While USAID mostly cooperates with governments, NED acts with non-governmental organizations; it is known that USAID transfers funds to NED.
During this period, while the U.S. did not officially declare support for the coup in Egypt, it maintained diplomatic relations with General Sisi, effectively legitimizing the transition. Furthermore, USAID continued its assistance to the Egyptian military without interruption. The rapid normalization of U.S. relations with Sisi’s regime after the coup reinforced criticism that USAID was not merely a humanitarian and development agency but rather a strategic tool of U.S. foreign policy.
Similarly, USAID’s activities in Ethiopia have been alleged to have increased ethnic tensions and fuelled ethnic divisions in the country. In particular, it has been argued that some projects have influenced local dynamics, altered political balances and negatively affected Ethiopia’s internal stability. However, according to USAID’s official statements, the agency is active in areas such as agriculture, human rights, economic growth and crisis management. There are also claims that the country is affected by complex dynamics such as ethnic nationalism and imperialism and that some economic support mechanisms work against certain ethnic groups. In this framework, it remains a controversial issue whether USAID’s projects directly promote ethnic divisions.
Impact on Security and Counterterrorism
The closure of USAID could significantly alter the security landscape in Africa Especially in Nigeria and the Sahel region, allegations that USAID funds indirectly contributed to the activities of some terrorist organizations have caused controversy. For example, Adamu Garba, one of the leaders of the APC in Nigeria, claimed that USAID directly or indirectly provided logistical and financial support to these groups and stated that the closure of the agency would deal a heavy blow to terrorist activiti
Besides, the end of USAID’s activities will negatively affect capacity-building projects for local security forces and US soft power activities in the region. The humanitarian crises that will arise with the withdrawal of USAID may create new areas of exploitation for terrorist organizations. In particular, economic difficulties, increased youth unemployment, and reduced food security will make it easier for radical groups to recruit new militants.
Moreover, USAID’s departure from Africa could lead to a decline in US military and diplomatic influence in Africa. The agency has long been a key tool for US diplomatic engagement and humanitarian efforts on the continent. This gap is likely to be filled by other global powers such as China and Russia, both of which are expanding their footprint in Africa. Similarly, Turkey is increasing its influence in Africa, particularly in Somalia, by providing security and infrastructure support. Through institutions such as the Maarif Foundation, TIKA, and the Turkish Red Crescent, it has also played important roles in humanitarian aid and development projects, further consolidating Turkey’s presence on the continent.
The Closure of USAID: Is the Global Balance Shifting?
The downscaling of USAID is an important development that reveals the decline in the US claim to global hegemony. This decision taken by the Trump administration within the framework of the ‘America First’ policy symbolizes not only a change in the field of humanitarian aid but also Washington’s strategic preference to reduce its global engagement. The US no longer embraces its role as the guardian of the global order as it once did, and its capacity to sustain this mission, both economically and politically, appears to be weakening. While Washington’s downsizing of its foreign aid mechanisms can be seen as a domestic political move to cut federal spending, it is also an indication of its inability to develop a new strategy to maintain its military and economic weight in foreign policy. This vacuum inevitably leads to rivals such as China and Russia gaining more space on the continent and on a global scale.
With the US withdrawal, it is clear that the geopolitical competition in Africa has evolved into a new dimension. China is increasing its economic investments in the continent with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and expanding its diplomatic influence through development aid. Russia, on the other hand, has established a deepening influence in the security field through the Wagner Group and direct military cooperation. Turkey, as one of the countries that has strengthened its diplomatic presence in the continent in recent years, is assuming a more active role in the field through humanitarian aid, development projects, and security cooperation. The decline in US funding is pushing African governments to establish closer ties with these new actors, indicating a reshaping of the global balance of power. On the other hand, the weakening of USAID’s humanitarian assistance mechanisms may increase the risk of economic and social instability in the continent, and pave the way for radical groups to gain power by filling this gap.
Ultimately, the closure of USAID is not only the end of an agency but also the erosion of the US claim to global leadership. Washington’s hegemonic power is not what it used to be, both because of its domestic policy orientations and its shrinking capacity in the international arena. The United States’ shift to a more timid position in global politics will accelerate the rise of alternative power centers, while new actors will come to the fore in strategic regions such as Africa. How the global balance of power will be shaped in the coming years will depend on how the US will respond to these new dynamics and how the global order will be transformed.
