The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a notable institution established under President Kennedy in 1961 with the goal of promoting global stability through humanitarian aid and development programs, has officially shut down.
This closure, attributed to a series of systematic dismantling initiatives by the Trump administration since January, has resulted in the cancellation of thousands of contracts and the laying off or placing on leave of numerous employees located both in the U.S. and overseas.
In a statement made public in early February, the U.S. State Department criticized USAID, asserting that the agency had “long strayed from its original mission” of responsibly advancing American interests abroad.
To address the perceived misalignment of USAID’s focus, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was appointed as Acting Administrator of the agency, and starting from July 1, USAID’s operations will be absorbed by the State Department.
NPR conducted interviews with four former high-ranking USAID officials, including past heads of the agency from both Democratic and Republican administrations, to discuss the implications of this major transition: Atul Gawande, Dean Karlan, Andrew Natsios, and Susan Reichle.
Reichle characterized the reorganization as “an absolute train wreck,” while Natsios referred to it as “an abomination.”
Their concerns are heightened by the belief that the State Department lacks the necessary capabilities to effectively manage the remaining programming and personnel previously overseen by USAID.
The State Department did not respond when NPR sought comments regarding the upcoming transition on July 1 and the critiques presented by former officials.
Andrew Natsios, who served as the USAID administrator from 2001 to 2006 under President George W. Bush, expressed skepticism about the future operational management of USAID’s complex global aid programs.
Natsios posed the rhetorical question, “Who is going to run this system? Santa Claus?”
The concern for growing famine is significant, particularly as Natsios has dedicated much of his work to the subject.
His personal connection to famine stems from his great uncle’s death during the Nazi-occupied Greek famine, which claimed the lives of over 300,000 individuals.
Natsios explained that global deaths from famine have significantly declined over the past four decades, thanks in large part to the development of a humanitarian response system largely led by USAID.
Historically, a substantial portion of USAID’s budget, estimated at a quarter of the $35 billion, has been allocated for disaster response including food emergencies.
With the dissolution of USAID, he expressed worries that hunger and famine, which have already been increasing for the past six years, might escalate with dire ramifications.
Natsios remarked, “During any famine, people start moving when they’re dying. And where do they go? They go to countries that are rich where there’s food.”
He posited that the solution to the migration crisis, which President Trump emphasized during his campaign, lies in addressing the root causes, such as improving conditions in regions grappling with food insecurity—tasks he believes USAID was originally meant to undertake.
He argued that with the dismantling of the agency, essential tools for tackling these crises have been lost.
“So by letting the international system collapse, we’re going to increase the pressure on our borders,” he opined, framing the dissolution as a significant oversight by the administration.
Dean Karlan, who held the position of Chief Economist at USAID until February, described the agency’s decline as a “slow death” that was confirmed by the July 1 transition, stating, “USAID stopped being what it was several months ago.”
Currently, he noted that 83% of the agency’s programs have been terminated and reiterated his skepticism regarding the State Department’s capability to continue the essential work that had once been performed by USAID.
Karlan highlighted the concerning projections for child mortality, emphasizing that 2025 may witness an unprecedented shift, with the possibility that global child deaths under five could increase for the first time in decades.
He cited the cancellation of crucial programs focused on food insecurity as contributing factors, including halted funding to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the Bureau for Resilience, Environment, and Food Security.
Karlan lamented that some food resources were left in warehouses to decay as a consequence of stop-work orders on contracts, impacting the lives of vulnerable populations.
The staffing situation at USAID has also experienced drastic reductions, as Susan Reichle pointed out that fewer than 6% of its original employees—only 718 individuals—would transition into the State Department.
With many of the existing programs potentially ending by September due to the inability of the State Department to extend contracts, Reichle stressed the need to commemorate the dedicated work of USAID personnel.
She highlighted past successes, such as the containment of the Ebola epidemic during the 2013 outbreak and the positive influence of education programs on migration patterns.
Natsios also noted some potential benefits of the reorganization, particularly in navigating the internal political dynamics between agencies, as the State Department might acquire a more advantageous position in advocating for foreign aid policies.
Despite this, he and others firmly believe that dismantling USAID was disproportionate and detrimental.
Karlan and Reichle advocated for a perceptive evaluation of foreign assistance strategies that could enhance program effectiveness, expressing that the merger could have been beneficial if performed thoughtfully.
Natsios analogized it to merging two vastly different corporate entities, explaining that the distinct cultural differences between the State Department and USAID contribute to the potential failure of the transition.
He predicted that within five years, the challenges posed by the merger would instigate calls for the creation of a new independent aid agency, acknowledging the significant disruption of a 60-year-old network in a matter of weeks.
Atul Gawande conveyed his heartbreak over the death of the agency, stating that USAID has historically provided profound global impact through its health initiatives and development programs.
He acknowledged that while the State Department may manage to continue some elements of USAID’s work, the effectiveness and leadership characteristics unique to the agency would be substantially diminished.
He expressed worry that aid operations might drift toward a politically motivated agenda without the centerpiece of an independent agency to drive them.
Reichle remarked that July 1 marks a significant point, as it coincides with the cessation of severance payments for many laid-off employees, symbolizing the formal end of their government service.
She noted that the experience lost from the attrition of dedicated personnel who understood the nuances of managing critical programs and fostering relationships with local partners is irreplaceable.
While the demise of USAID may feel definitive, Gawande believes that humanity’s need for foreign aid will inevitably lead to a revival, though he is uncertain about the timeline for such a resurrection.
Ultimately, he reflected on the legacy of the agency with the thought of an appropriate epitaph to honor its contributions, considering the potential for future rebuilding of impactful initiatives in the realm of global development.
Despite the upheaval, the resilient community of aid professionals remains hopeful for the future, solidifying their commitment to supporting development work in any manifestation it might take.
image source from：npr
