In an unprecedented joint statement today, former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama condemned the Trump administration’s decision to shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The bipartisan rebuke highlights growing concern over America’s retreating global humanitarian footprint.
“Foreign aid isn’t charity—it’s a strategic investment in American security and global stability,” Bush stated during a press conference at his presidential library in Dallas. The Republican former president, who expanded USAID significantly through initiatives like PEPFAR, called the closure “shortsighted and dangerous.”
Obama echoed these sentiments, adding that “dismantling decades of institutional knowledge and relationships will create vacuums that our adversaries are eager to fill.” He cited USAID’s critical role in addressing the 2014 Ebola crisis, noting that “these capabilities cannot be rebuilt overnight.”
The agency, which has operated since 1961, manages approximately $27.5 billion in foreign assistance annually, according to federal budget documents. Its programs reach over 100 countries worldwide.
Former USAID Administrator Samantha Power described the decision as “abandoning America’s most effective soft power tool.” Speaking to reporters, she warned that “when America steps back from humanitarian leadership, others step in—and not always with the same values or interests at heart.”
Recent polling from Pew Research Center shows Americans remain divided on foreign aid, with 52% supporting current or increased levels, while 46% favor reductions. This split largely follows partisan lines, with Republican voters more skeptical of international assistance programs.
Congressional reaction has similarly broken along party lines. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho), ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, defended the administration’s move as “long overdue fiscal responsibility,” while Senator Chris Coons (D-Delaware) called it “a retreat from American leadership that will haunt us for generations.”
The State Department, which will absorb some USAID functions, released a transition plan yesterday. Critics note the plan reallocates only 18% of current USAID funding to continuing programs, effectively ending most ongoing initiatives.
Development experts warn the closure may create immediate humanitarian crises in regions dependent on American assistance. Dr. Raj Shah, who led USAID under Obama, pointed to ongoing food security programs in the Horn of Africa as particularly vulnerable. “These aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet—they’re millions of lives at stake,” Shah told me during a phone interview yesterday.
The decision also raises questions about America’s competitive position against China’s expanding global influence. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative has invested over $1 trillion in development projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America since 2013, according to World Bank estimates.
Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, expressed concern about the strategic implications. “In my military career, I saw firsthand how development programs prevent conflicts before they require military intervention,” he said. “This decision may save pennies now but cost dollars—and lives—later.”
For communities receiving USAID support, the consequences could be immediate. In northern Kenya, where U.S.-funded irrigation projects have helped mitigate drought conditions, local officials fear progress could quickly reverse. “We were just beginning to stand on our own,” said Mary Kiptoo, a regional agricultural coordinator I interviewed during my reporting trip there last year.
The administration defends the move as part of broader government restructuring to reduce federal spending. White House spokesman Jake Davidson characterized it as “refocusing American resources on American priorities,” though declined to provide specific estimates of projected savings.
As implementation begins, Bush and Obama have pledged to advocate for preserving critical humanitarian programs through private channels and their respective foundations. Their rare show of unity underscores how foreign assistance has historically transcended partisan divides—until now.
The question remains whether this bipartisan criticism will influence the administration’s approach or simply highlight another norm being challenged in America’s evolving relationship with the world.
For communities from South Sudan to Bangladesh counting on American assistance, the answer carries profound implications beyond policy debates in Washington.
