In July 2025, a resounding break from multilateralism occurred: the U.S. Congress confirmed the death of USAID (United States Agency for International Development), an agency that accounted for about 42% of international aid in 2024. This decision is part of the United States' withdrawal from multilateralism, an action that President Donald Trump has made one of the hallmarks of his foreign policy since his return to the White House. With a mercantilist and transnationalist perception of global politics, Trump is not really interested in the disastrous consequences this decision has on countries in the Global South, especially in Africa. However, even though USAID has always faced criticism both domestically and abroad, it has always contributed to the image of the United States and even legitimized its hegemonic status, in addition to saving thousands of lives. In Africa, even though a desire for economic sovereignty is gradually emerging on the continent, this aspiration is still far from being realized, and public development aid remains a necessity. However, it is also a diplomatic niche to strengthen the soft power of emerging donor states, and in a multipolar world, Africa can find alternatives to mitigate the unfortunate consequences of the American withdrawal.
USAID: the origins
USAID was created in 1961 by President John Fitzgerald Kennedy to manage American foreign aid. This was primarily part of an international policy where the United States played the role of a "benevolent hegemon", financing "global public goods" and regulating the financial system. From the Marshall Plan developed after World War II for the reconstruction of European countries, to the various USAID programs in 177 countries, international aid has been an instrument of soft power but also ofEconomic Statecraft(coercive economic diplomacy) for the United States. Indeed, humanitarian programs and development aid from a bilateral or multilateral perspective have long reinforced the credibility and legitimacy of the United States, in addition to other elements of its structural power (security, knowledge, finance, and production according to Susan Strange). However, American foreign aid has also been a means of spreading power and the vision of American values in the world, especially in the context of the Cold War and to stop the expansion of communism. Often, countries had to make concessions by aligning with the American vision of democracy, human rights, and economic liberalism to be beneficiaries.
This also explains the criticisms that the organization has often faced and on which Elon Musk (who was at the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, the DOGE) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have surfed to legitimize this dismantling. USAID has often been perceived as an instrument of interference that could promote political destabilizations under the pretext of strengthening democracy and civil societies; it served the American intelligence in certain countries, promoting values that are completely contrary to the beliefs, customs, and traditions of some recipient countries; etc.
However, despite all these criticisms, USAID has significantly impacted millions of lives in poor countries, particularly in Africa.
Consequences of the dismantling of USAID in Africa
From the beginning of the year, the suspension of USAID projects for 90 days by President Trump quickly showed the significant consequences that the cut of this source would have on the continent. In total, 83% of American aid has been cut, and the rest is now in the hands of the State Department, which ensures its efficiency and effectiveness according to Marco Rubio. Ongoing humanitarian projects have been aggressively halted in countries where millions of lives still depend on USAID programs. Vaccination campaigns, the fight against HIV (especially in South Africa where 17% of the population is affected), 1.5 million tons of goods distributed to poor countries, basic service infrastructure, etc. need to be accounted for. In 2024, USAID allocated a budget of about 35.4 billion US dollars, of which 11.5 billion is intended for countries on the African continent, according to data available on the official website.foreignassistance.gov, reported TV5 Monde.
USAID Funding in Africa, 2024
• Democratic Republic of Congo: 1.34 billion dollars
• Ethiopia: 1.2 billion dollars
• Sudan: 700 million dollars
• South Sudan: 726 million dollars
• Nigeria: 762 million dollars
• Kenya: 629 million dollars
• Mozambique: 586 million dollars
• Uganda: 510 million dollars
• Tanzania: 437 million dollars
• Zambia: 408 million dollars
• Malawi: 273 million dollars
• Mali: 299 million dollars
• Burkina Faso: 313 million dollars
• Ghana: 187 million dollars
• Senegal: 203 million dollars
The dismantling of USAID does not only have bilateral effects. The aid cuts decided by Trump also have repercussions on the UN.Americans have already withdrawn from UNESCO, WHO, and the Human Rights Council. There will be effects on the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. It’s horrible what is happening. And so sudden.", explained Michèle Asselin, Executive Director of the Quebec Association of International Cooperation Organizations. Furthermore, the American decision, as is customary in transatlantic relations, is followed as an example by other countries. The United Kingdom, Germany, and France will also respectively reduce their support by 39%, 27%, and 19%, according to a study by the Human Rights Funders Network.
However, a study by Mo Ibrahim highlights the decline in Africa's share of official development assistance over the past 10 years: although it remains the largest recipient in total amount ($73.6 billion in 2023), Africa's share has dropped by 11 percentage points, from 37.6% in 2013 to 26.7% in 2023. Among the top ten donors to the region in 2023, six were multilateral organizations (World Bank, EU, Global Fund, UN, IMF, and AfDB) and four were countries from the Development Assistance Committee (United States, Germany, France, and Japan).
This shows the urgency for African countries to build economic models that gradually free themselves from international aid. However, while the focus is on finding endogenous economic models in some countries, it is still possible to find alternatives within the international system.
Recommendations
Since 1945, the United States has built a diplomatic aura and credibility that has long been supported by its international engagement and especially the status of a "benevolent state." In his transactional reading of international politics, Donald Trump does not see the return on investment of this engagement and especially of international aid. Since soft power is not always measurable in tangible terms, a mercantilist would not understand its impact through attractiveness, the legitimacy to be diplomatically followed at the United Nations, the ability to stand as a political and economic model, to create an economic environment receptive to the extraterritorialization of its companies, and to have legitimacy to intervene diplomatically or strengthen its military presence in the world.
These attributes of soft power have led emerging countries to invest heavily in this sector. Development aid has become, for example, one of the pillars of Chinese policy in Africa (even if the "debt trap" inhibits its image). Türkiye has also made significant strides in this sector by initiating diplomacy based on humanitarian issues and unconditional humanitarian aid, just like China. The multipolarity of the international scene now enhances the capacities of African states to mitigate the effects of the gradual withdrawal of Western aid, especially that of the United States. Washington, as some voices from the Democratic Party have pointed out, is leaving a diplomatic niche that it may find difficult to reclaim later.
Recommendation 1
African countries must take advantage of multipolarity to strengthen South-South cooperation, which can be more beneficial and less coercive, unlike the conditionalities that accompany Western policy.
Recommendation 2
For many years, African states have expressed their desire to reduce development aid and prioritize trade and investment cooperation. This doctrine should be emphasized more to strengthen health infrastructure, agricultural structures, industry, and technology to equip African peoples with the means of livelihood to take care of themselves and improve their living conditions.
Recommendation 3
Today, there is a significant financial windfall to be sought in Gulf countries through two mechanisms:
- Gulf countries have a tradition of philanthropy that stems from Arab-Muslim culture and the Muslim religion. Several family businesses, the royal family, or individuals engage in philanthropy in accordance with certain religious principles and represent significant financial resources.
- The countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC, consisting of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar) are playing an increasingly important role in global development financing and have significantly expanded their development aid portfolios. From 2019 to 2022, according to researcher Abdulla Khoory from the Fiker Institute, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait collectively contributed $28.9 billion to Official Development Assistance, with ODA/GNI (Gross National Income) ratios exceeding those of the United States and the European Union. From 2010 to 2021, GCC states accounted for an average of 7.5% of global humanitarian funding, peaking at over 16% in 2018. These figures highlight not only the increase in financial commitments but also a significant shift in geopolitical positioning.
These two levers need to be better popularized in the cooperation between Gulf countries and the African continent. These countries are also increasingly investing in their attractiveness and image and need this diplomatic niche.
Recommendation 4
In addition to "philanthro-diplomacy" and the paradigm shift in Gulf countries' engagement in development aid, these are countries with sovereign funds of enormous financial potential that are looking to monetize them. Africa, which still has invaluable growth potential, is the perfect market to host and capitalize on this financial windfall through investment projects in heavy industries, technology, finance, agribusiness, or energy.
Conclusion
The dismantling of USAID is a consequence of a crisis in multilateralism and the disengagement of Western countries, most of which are experiencing budget crises and have been significantly and indirectly impacted by the Russo-Ukrainian war. Over the decades, Africa has remained in a proven economic dependency in the absence of an endogenous and sovereign economic model, and especially a political vision oriented towards the West, which has made it more vulnerable to any shocks from the international system. The current crisis in development aid must compel African countries to rethink their economic models as well as their international partnerships. Since Western countries are no longer truly predictable actors, Africa must reconsider its friendships.
By Dr. Alioune Aboutalib LÔ
Founder and Principal Consultant of ESPA Advisory
