Globalizing perspectives on AI safety

LIVE

Globalizing perspectives on AI safety
Sections

Commentary

The implications of a USAID shutdown

Brookings experts weigh in

A security guard stands in a doorway behind yellow tape reading "Authorized access only."
A security guard stands inside, as the USAID building sits closed to employees after a memo was issued advising agency personnel to work remotely, in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 3, 2025. Reuters/Kent Nishimura

Over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has frozen U.S. foreign assistance, appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio as acting administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and announced a review of the agency’s activities.

With USAID’s future unclear, Brookings experts weigh in on the implications of a shutdown or reorganization, for the United States and for the world.

Scott R. Anderson

Trump administration may back down on USAID abolition due to constitutional concerns

The Trump administration’s reported plans to abolish the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by presidential fiat raise serious questions of constitutional law. While USAID was originally created by executive order, Congress has statutorily mandated its existence since the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 and routinely reinforces this status through authorization and appropriations legislation. Recent annual appropriations legislation also prohibits any reorganization of USAID without prior consultation with relevant congressional committees. Ignoring these statutes would be tantamount to an extraordinarily broad claim of exclusive constitutional authority by the president over the structure of the executive branch. This view is hard to reconcile with either conventional views on Congress’ authority over the creation of federal offices or the current Supreme Court’s approach to major questions and the interpretation of ambiguous statutes, which generally serve to constrain executive branch discretion. For this reason, it would run a serious risk of being invalidated when inevitably challenged in the federal courts, most likely by a USAID employee or aid recipient who suffered adverse consequences as a result of the change.

Perhaps for this reason, the Trump administration may now be backing down. On February 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he was the new acting Administrator of USAID and that he was appointing Peter Marocco—a Trump loyalist and the controversial head of the State Department’s foreign assistance bureau responsible for the ongoing freeze of foreign assistance activities—as acting deputy administrator. In this capacity, Rubio notified Congress that Marocco would be leading “a review and potential reorganization of USAID’s activities” and that, “in consultation with Congress, USAID may move, reorganize, and integrate certain missions, bureaus, and offices into the Department of State, and the remainder of the Agency may be abolished consistent with applicable law” (italics added by author). While still potentially damaging to USAID’s mission, many of these more limited steps—dual hatting senior officials, reorganizing within USAID, and returning certain delegated functions to the State Department—can likely be accomplished under existing authorities, raising fewer legal concerns. Moreover, Rubio’s notice—which was itself framed as satisfying statutory notice requirements in recent appropriations legislation—suggests an intent to work with Congress on USAID reform instead of working around it, particularly if it wishes to pursue abolition or other measures contrary to existing statutes.

Only time will tell, however, whether these overtures are in good faith or a feint while the Trump administration continues to pursue a more disruptive and legally questionable route forward.

Vanda Felbab-Brown

Abolishing USAID hurts multiple US priorities

Abolishing the congressionally funded USAID would hurt U.S. interests in multiple ways that go beyond the core principle of U.S. policy to save lives.

USAID’s efforts to prevent conflict around the world, encourage democratic and pluralistic processes and protect human rights, reduce suffering from death and disease, encourage sustainable economic growth, and prevent environmental destruction reflect the essence of the United States. They help build an international environment that services U.S. interests and values.

They also constitute soft power projection to compete against Russia’s and China’s anti-American posture and activities around the world. As China expands its diplomatic and economic influence around the world, American support for systems of oversight, accountability, and sustainable economic and environmental decisions helps prevent China from entrapping countries in debt and diplomatic subservience and from monopolizing critical minerals or strategic access points, about which the Trump administration is so concerned with respect to the Panama Canal.

At the time when Russia is selling its military services and engaging in egregious aggression, USAID programming that prevents and diffuses conflict and counters Moscow’s misinformation and disinformation campaigns is an important tool to mitigate Russia’s pernicious influence.

USAID’s efforts also prevent the spread of deadly terrorism that still boils across Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia and affects Americans and U.S. assets too. Programs that lift people out of poverty, foster economic development, encourage access to justice, and promote better governance address the root causes on which terrorism thrives.

And efforts that prevent life-ending or debilitating illness and protect healthy ecosystems support sustainable economic growth, and prevent the global spread of infectious diseases that hurt U.S. citizens and the United States as well. All these USAID efforts help prevent the migration flows the Trump administration is so strongly determined to stop.

Jeffrey Feltman

Undermining Israel-Lebanon ceasefire

While the Trump administration exempted assistance to Israel and Egypt from its foreign aid suspension, the abrupt rupture in U.S. support puts the fragile Israel-Lebanon ceasefire at risk. The November 27, 2024 ceasefire agreement was brokered by the Biden administration and France, reportedly with the approval and input of incoming Trump officials. According to its terms, a delicate sequence of events should have occurred by January 27: Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah pull-back and disarmament, and Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) deployment to secure southern Lebanon.

With the White House having announced an extension of the ceasefire deadline to February 18, credible LAF deployment is essential. Deployment depends in part on restarting the U.S. program of military training and equipping, funded through U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF), now suspended under the Trump executive order.

Hezbollah was seriously degraded by Israeli military action and faces a Shia base frustrated by the paltry sums available to rebuild communities shattered in last autumn’s war. A once-in-a-generation opportunity exists to support a Lebanon not held hostage to Hezbollah and to build a secure Israel-Lebanon border after decades of instability and outbreaks of war. A newly elected Lebanese president, Joseph Aoun, and a nominated prime minister candidate, Nawaf Salam, have publicly called for a Lebanon with one army that can secure its borders against arms smuggling. Cutting U.S. support for Lebanon (which goes beyond LAF support) just at the moment when Lebanese politicians are finally willing to try to break Hezbollah’s stranglehold pulls the political rug out from under these courageous leaders.

If the Israelis refuse to withdraw from southern Lebanon because the LAF lacks the support to fill the vacuum, Hezbollah will seize the opportunity to rebuild the narrative that “resistance,” not diplomacy or the national army, is the only response to Israeli occupation. Violence will reignite. Most U.S. administrations would recognize, in fact, that conditions are finally in place for Lebanon to emerge sovereign and posing no threat to its neighbors. A decades-long U.S. policy goal is finally in reach. In other words, time to increase, not suspend, U.S. support.

Caren Grown

Gender, economic prosperity, and health initiatives suffer under a USAID shutdown

It is disheartening that the second Trump administration has abandoned the core support it gave to the core tenets of the gender equality and female empowerment policy during its first administration and to initiatives that supported it. Launched in February 2019, the first Trump administration’s Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Initiative sought to reach millions of women in low-income countries by 2025 through focusing on workforce development, entrepreneurship, and an enabling environment for women to succeed. But that administration also went beyond economic issues. In 2017, the president signed into law the Women, Peace, and Security Act (Public Law 115-68), making this the first legislation of its kind to acknowledge the multifaceted roles of women throughout the conflict spectrum. In June 2019, the U.S. government released the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS Strategy), making the U.S. the first country in the world with both a comprehensive law and whole-of-government strategy on WPS.

The USAID shutdown stalls progress toward economic prosperity and stability. It stops support for cash transfers that reach the poorest households, halts financing for women farmers who produce food and other staples, stops lifesaving health services, and disrupts public-private partnerships to help women compete in the digital economy, to name just a few core programs. Beyond support for people in need, it suspends support for key tools of policymaking, including data production and knowledge. USAID is the largest supporter of the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program, which has collected high quality data on health, nutrition, and demographic trends in more than 90 countries since 1984. In many cases, the DHS is the only source of information on a country’s population.

People around the world have looked to USAID to champion the values of human dignity and respect for all. This administration damages that trust and makes it harder for the U.S. to be a reliable and influential partner in efforts to make the world safer and more prosperous.

Michael Hansen

USAID’s sudden shutdown is a warning shot for the US Department of Education

USAID’s hostile takeover is a clear signal to the U.S. Department of Education (ED): Look out, you’re next!

Like USAID, Republicans have long questioned ED’s usefulness while out of power, though that talk typically evaporated once in the White House. In fact, Republicans presided at the times when ED’s influence over public schools increased most. The first Trump term also followed this pattern: In 2016, then-candidate Trump proposed abolishing ED; though after inauguration, ED operated more or less in line with prior administrations preceding it under Secretary Betsy DeVos (aside from reversing many Obama-era initiatives). Trump released a federal government reform plan in 2018 that included merging ED under the Labor Department, though that proposal went nowhere.

The reason for ED’s dogged persistence is that Congress must sign off on changes to its structure or budget, which is less vulnerable to presidential whims. Thus, Trump’s campaign talk and the Project 2025 proposals to eliminate ED have again been widely panned as not credible threats. Merely two weeks ago, I moderated a webinar with three former secretaries of education who all offered constructive suggestions for strategic reforms amid Trump’s talk of downsizing the ED, though none viewed its closure as realistic or productive.

But with last week’s moves at USAID, ED’s status is now in peril. President Trump, relying on Elon Musk and the quasi-governmental Department of Government Efficiency, is taking decisive actions at USAID first despite congressional pushback, established spending laws, and employment protections. They are clearly willing to push well beyond the limits to achieve their objectives.

Yesterday, media reports surfaced of Trump’s imminent plans for a similar hollowing out of ED that includes placing many staff on administrative leave, shutting down some ED functions, and spinning off others. If this comes to pass, students in all American schools will feel the reverberations of these actions—potentially impacting funding for low-income or disabled students, education research functions, and the protections of students’ civil rights. This is the wrong curriculum for the nation’s ailing students and institutions still reeling from the pandemic.

George Ingram

Congress must stand against the dismantling of USAID

In the first two weeks of the Trump administration, the U.S. foreign aid program has been disrupted by a combination of ill-considered actions and circumvention of the role and laws enacted by Congress.

These have included: a freeze on most foreign assistance without accompanying clear guidance or process for waivers; sending home 60 senior career policy officials and then some 1,000 contract personnel who do the work of managing foreign assistance; removing career officials who refuse to execute illegal orders; giving unauthorized civilians working for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to the USAID systems that contain the agency’s data.

Finally on day 15 (February 3), the administration honored a congressional mandate. Secretary of State Rubio sent a letter to congressional committees initiating a consultative process on moving functions of USAID into the Department of State. This meets the requirement in section 7036 of the 2024 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act prohibiting any reorganization of USAID and the Department of State without consulting Congress.

The question now is, given the ongoing circumvention of the law and the congressional power of the purse, will the administration respect the consultation process?

The reason this is an issue is the administration can in any case execute de facto merger of most of USAID’s functions without congressional action. The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 established USAID as an independent agency, with the administrator receiving foreign policy guidance from the secretary of state. Both USAID and the Department of State (along with some 20 other U.S. government agencies) implement foreign assistance programs. But since the creation of the State Department Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance (known as F) in 2006, State has exercised increasing authority over USAID programs.

So, will the Congress stand up against ill-considered dismantling of USAID—impacting on its more than 10,000 staff and hundreds of thousands of intended beneficiaries around the world and damaging the U.S. reputation as a reliable ally—as a few members of Congress are beginning to do, and demand that the law and regular procedures be honored?

Thomas Pepinsky

Closing USAID is incompatible with the US national interest

Elon Musk’s attempts to close USAID are not only illegal, they are also fundamentally incompatible with the United States’ national interest. Throughout the world, USAID has been a strong supporter of U.S. diplomacy, partnering with governments and civil society alike to further local development and strengthen institutions.

The record of USAID in Indonesia is instructive. In recent decades, USAID has invested in democracy, good governance, environmental stewardship, infrastructural development, and other critical programs to support this important strategic partner in the Asia Pacific. USAID’s presence in Indonesia ensures that the United States is an active participant in Indonesia’s economic transformation, supporting close government-to-government relations while ensuring that U.S. strategic competitors do not gain a geopolitical advantage in the region.

Congress must immediately put an end to Elon Musk’s presence in the federal government, demand legislative accountability under the law, and take back control over this important national asset for the good of the United States.

Anthony F. Pipa

Abrupt changes at USAID are undermining US credibility and national security

The policy issues at the heart of the Trump administration’s actions concerning USAID are ones that previous administrations across the political spectrum have grappled with. The manner in which the administration has pursued these, however, is hurting U.S. interests abroad and potentially putting it at odds with the constitution at home.

Incoming administrations regularly undertake a review to align spending with priorities. However, putting a freeze on spending while the review is underway—especially for up to 90 days in some of the most challenging places in the world—triggers a practical conclusion: Most implementers receiving the funding will be unable to stop and restart their projects, so the decision is in effect already made.

The abrupt removal of a significant portion of the USAID’s staff and expertise adds to the inability to restart and meet congressional mandates on spending. This is independent of Secretary of State Rubio’s February 3 letter to Congress about the potential for merging the independent agency into the Department of State. Both issues call into question the boundaries of executive versus legislative authorities.

The cessation and sudden downsizing are undermining U.S. credibility internationally and increasing national security risks. They also have the potential for significant long-term effects on U.S. economic interests.

In a 2017 analysis, 11 of the 15 largest trading partners of the U.S. were former recipients of aid, but countries today have many options as they react to the sudden unreliability of the United States. China, for example, has expanded its global footprint significantly and has spent over $1 trillion globally since 2013 through its Belt and Road initiative.

It’s worth considering some of the organizations affected by a freeze. USAID’s largest implementing partner in 2024 was Catholic Relief Services. Samaritan’s Purse, an organization founded by Billy Graham’s son Franklin, has received over $90 million from USAID over the last four years to support its efforts around the world. USAID’s activities are a reflection of how many Americans wish to walk and be viewed in the world.

In the 1990s, at the end of the Cold War, USAID experienced a reduction in staff and resources. After the atrocities on 9/11, however, USAID’s obligations grew significantly and immediately—by 70% between 2001 to 2003—because policymakers in Congress and presidential administrations recognized that addressing poverty, improving health, and supporting economic growth overseas made America safer at home. Today’s world is too dangerous to court making history repeat itself.

Ghulam Omar Qargha

Balancing short-term goals and long-term global leadership in international aid

International aid has always had a spectrum of goals, from altruistic intentions of helping others to advancing political, economic, and military self-interest. Like other aid organizations, USAID has operated within this multiplicity of intentions across all administrations. I have seen firsthand how these different goals interact. Many aid programs drive meaningful change—helping young people gain employment, supporting clinics that deliver life-saving care, increasing agricultural productivity, and increasing access to education for millions of children. However, I have seen other programs where aid served political objectives rather than its stated mission. In one instance, a $90 million USAID education project was designed to prioritize the education minister’s political ambitions over systematically improving the teacher education project. In another case, USAID project representatives, including myself, were explicitly informed in a NATO briefing that our primary mission was counterinsurgency rather than development.

The Trump administration’s decision to freeze USAID’s activities, and a potential move to shut it down, shifts U.S. foreign assistance toward the administration’s immediate political objectives while deprioritizing long-term global aid priorities. While officials argue that these changes are intended to improve efficiency and accountability, the administration’s rhetoric has largely framed aid in transactional terms rather than as an instrument of long-term global leadership. Although this could be viewed as a more transparent approach to aid, it risks undermining the long-term interests of the United States.

While aid has, at times, been used to impose ideas in ways that have fueled conflict, this is not an argument for making it purely transactional but for reforming it to reflect our global responsibility better. Rather than reducing foreign assistance to a short-term political instrument, the Trump administration should seek a model that aligns global responsibility with long-term U.S. interests. Historically, U.S. foreign aid has been most effective when it reinforces American leadership through sustained partnerships, moral responsibility, and shared global prosperity by designing programs collaboratively with local partners. An example of the discussion of how we can move toward a more effective and sustainable aid strategy can be found here. The question is not whether aid should serve national interests—it always must—but whether it does so while maintaining our global responsibility. Thoughtful reform can ensure that U.S. aid policy remains a vital tool for both advancing American values and strengthening its long-term global influence.

Molly E. Reynolds

Trump administration’s push to dismantle USAID part of a broader assault on congressional power

The efforts by the Trump administration—particularly the Elon Musk-led task force known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—to dismantle USAID stand to have major short- and long-term consequences for individuals who rely on foreign assistance around the world and U.S. foreign policy objectives alike. But it should also be understood in the context of a broader, direct assault by the executive branch on congressional power.

On his first day in office, President Trump issued several executive orders freezing certain federal funds—including one halting the vast majority of foreign assistance programs. The following week, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo directing agencies to “temporarily pause all activities” related to the disbursement of grants, loans, and other federal financial assistance. Subsequent actions by federal courts directed the OMB to lift the freeze, and going forward, the executive branch may find that specific statutes do provide it more legal flexibility over the flow of federal funds.

But in the meantime, a broad attack on the congressional power of the purse continues, and the attempted dismantling of USAID is part of it. The agency was created in 1961 to implement a set of congressionally-authorized aid programs, and Congress has continued to appropriate funds for the agency’s use since then—including as recently as December 2024, when the agency’s activities were included in the continuing resolution currently funding federal discretionary programs through March 14. If the Trump administration is successful in circumventing Congress’ intention for the agency and its programs to operate, it may well try the same play with other departments and functions important to the American people.

Sweta Shah

The lives of vulnerable children around the world are at risk

With the suspension of USAID funding, the implementation of the 2020 Global Thrive Act is at risk, as is aid to millions of vulnerable children around the world. The law, which focuses on supporting vulnerable children and families—those who are poor, orphaned, living with HIV/AIDS, disabled, or impacted by humanitarian crises—requires U.S. government agencies to “incorporate early childhood development into current programs and promote inclusive early childhood development in partner countries.”

As part of this mandate, USAID is charged with coordinating an interagency effort to implement the “Advancing Protection and Care for Children in Adversity to Thrive” strategy in order to achieve holistic results for young children (birth to 8 years) in places like Rwanda, Cambodia, and Mozambique. The strategy prioritizes:

  • Strong beginnings for children through holistic health, nutrition, protection, and education.
  • Putting family care first.
  • Protecting children from violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect.

The U.S. is the largest donor worldwide for children. But with this law and its implementation paused, even if ultimately for only 90 days, millions of children’s and families’ lives are at risk.

Landry Signé

Potential implications of the USAID shutdown for Africa and US-Africa relations

The shutdown of USAID programs will have far-reaching consequences for Africans, Americans, and U.S.-Africa relations. Africans have long benefited from USAID’s key development programs, including more than $6.5 billion in humanitarian aid last year. American citizens and corporations have benefited from the private sector engagement with a continent home to 11 of the top 20 fastest growing economies in the world, while relations between the two regions reap benefits from this history of partnership.

USAID programs have been credited to have saved more than 25 million lives, the majority of which are African, from HIV/AIDS (via PEPFAR), with health programs accounting for about 70% of the United States’ annual State Department and USAID-administered aid allocations. Following health, U.S. aid allocations prioritize economic growth initiatives including agricultural development aid, peace and security, education and social services, and democracy, human rights, and governance, leading to key achievements such as closing $86 billion worth of private sector deals and providing new or improved electricity access to 180 million people in sub-Saharan Africa.

African prosperity is linked to American prosperity. Shutting down USAID programs related to governance and stability threatens international security, while cuts to health programs that fund the fight against infectious diseases put American health at risk. If the U.S. withdraws, it risks losing the geopolitical competition in Africa to countries such China, Russia, and the Gulf States, which continue to deepen their ties to the continent through economic, military, and critical mineral partnerships. The decision to cut USAID means giving up key soft power and geopolitical influence at a critical time in history where Africa will shape the world’s future. By 2050, 1 in 4 people and 1 in 3 young people will hail from the continent, where they will be at the forefront of solving global challenges by driving innovations. USAID initiatives have provided a way for the U.S. to work with Africa to help shape the future while promoting American ideals of democracy and freedom. The shutdown of these initiatives represents both a risk and a missed opportunity.

The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).