By Eija Ranta. Originally published by the KIOS Foundation on 28 February 2025. 
President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze the operations of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was shocking. It became clear during Trump’s first presidential term that he did not believe in soft power such as development cooperation, which builds partnerships, strengthens institutions, and works toward common values such as democracy and human rights. At the heart of Trump’s policies seemed to be intimidation, threats, and force.
Still, the scale of the downsizing of USAID and the massive layoffs and terminations of staff came as a surprise. Moreover, the rhetoric in which Trump referred to USAID leadership as radical fools and Elon Musk, who led the administration’s efficiency operation, called USAID a criminal organisation, was unprecedented in its audacity.
From the perspective of U.S. democracy, Senator Marco Rubio’s self-declaration as the interim head of USAID is not a good look. The agency, which had operated under the democratic decision-making of Congress, was transferred to the political control of the Department of State, a move that has been a topic of controversy in the U.S. for some time but had always been blocked. Now, in the executive order issued by Trump in January regarding development cooperation, it is declared that all development cooperation must align seamlessly with the president’s own priorities.
Such actions are what we have come to expect from authoritarian leaders.
The Contradictions of U.S. Democracy Support
The U.S. has been famous for its support of democracy around the world – both for better and for worse. The U.S. has always sought to position itself as the flagship of democracy, and its support for dissidents, human rights defenders, a free press, and multiparty systems around the world has been significant. For instance, Samuel P. Huntington presents the third wave of democratisation in his book (1991), where U.S. democracy support played a role as one of the many catalysts for the development of multiparty systems.
At the same time, the U.S. has many historical examples of grossly undemocratic actions. During the Cold War, it generously supported brutal military dictatorships in Latin America. In the name of the fight against communism, democratic movements were suppressed, and students and activists were arrested, tortured, and murdered. Under George W. Bush, USAID’s operations grew massively in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the War on Terror expanded particularly to the Middle East.
Throughout the Global South, reactions to U.S. development aid have historically been mixed. Many leaders and scholars in the Global South have accused the U.S. – and USAID – of imperialism, interfering in the internal affairs of countries.
In Finland, we have also grown accustomed to the fact that each development cooperation minister wants to leave their mark on the kind of development cooperation Finland conducts. However, because the U.S. is a superpower in terms of economic and military strength, its scale of development cooperation and the political, economic, and military expectations tied to it have always been far more pointed than what we are used to in Finland. Over the years, the extent to which U.S. development cooperation has served its own interests has varied greatly.
Equality as an Issue
Over recent decades, USAID has strongly invested in supporting civil society, particularly to compensate for past mistakes. Diversity programmes, equality, and inclusion, as well as aid localisation, became central to the agency’s work a few years ago. The goal was that by 2025, 25% of funding would go directly to local partners, and by 2030, 50% of projects would be led by local institutions and communities.
Because Trump’s Christian right-wing conservatives and the far-right have opposed “gender ideology” and the status of sexual and gender minorities, as well as the status of immigrants and ethnic minorities, USAID’s new approach has likely been one of the reasons why development cooperation fell into the clutches of the MAGA machinery.
There are also indications in the rhetoric of Trump’s group that they do not want to invest in development cooperation because the money goes to foreigners. In that hostile and racist rhetoric, Mexicans are portrayed as rapists, Haitians as cat-eaters, and African leaders as corrupt cheetah-hat-wearing figures.
However, it is clear that the consequences of cutting development cooperation have not been carefully considered.
Potential Consequences of the Downsizing
It is unprecedented for the United States to voluntarily dismantle its superpower status in relation to developing countries in a global political climate where geopolitics is undergoing a dramatic shift due to China, Russia, the BRICS countries (initially an alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, which has expanded in recent years), and other emerging actors. The power of the U.S.’s traditional competitors is expected to grow stronger.
We still live in a world where the economies of the poorest countries are so small that international development cooperation constitutes a significant portion of their income. According to one estimate, suspending USAID funding for a year would mean more than one percent of gross national income for 23 countries, and more than three percent for eight countries. The impact would be greatest in conflict countries like South Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Syria, potentially increasing refugees. Eight low-income and eight lower-middle-income countries are losing one-fifth of their international aid. These countries include Kenya, Haiti, Honduras, and Zimbabwe.
It has already been suggested that USAID cuts in Latin America will increase migration and refugee flows to the U.S. as people seek jobs, livelihoods, and political freedoms.
The disruption in U.S.-Europe relations is likely to lead to European countries investing significantly more in security than they currently do. The UK has already announced significant cuts to development aid and a shift of funds to defence. It is therefore likely that European countries will follow the U.S. model of development aid cuts.
The number of people defending democracy, human rights, and equality is shrinking rapidly as wars, militarisation, and changing geopolitics fill the political space.
Eija Ranta is an Academy Researcher and University Lecturer in Global Development Studies at the University of Helsinki. She is a member of the KIOS Board the FSDR Board.