The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was established in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy. Its key focus was to implement programmes in global health, disaster relief, socio-economic development and governance etc. Over time, it has become one of the world’s biggest aid organisations with missions in over one hundred countries around the world. A map of its development assistance spread is presented below.
In Africa, USAID spent 12 billion dollars in sub-Saharan Africa with most of its aid going to the following countries;
The announcement of the freeze in its activities will certainly affect ongoing aid programmes, particularly in key countries across the continent. In Ghana, it is estimated that the shutdown would affect programmes valued at 156 million dollars.
The shutdown is expected to impact Africa in the following key areas;
• Humanitarian Assistance and Health Programs covering areas such as maternal and child health as well as HIV Aids and other related health interventions.
• Economic Development and Trade, particularly within the areas of agriculture, food security, infrastructure and investments in roads, water and energy.
• Governance and Democracy Support, as well as support for civil society institutions aimed at deepening governance and strengthening institutions.
• Education, particularly improvement in enrolment for girls and overall literacy.
• Peace and Security
• Environmental and Climate Change Programs
• Cultural and Educational Exchanges.
All over the world, Development Aid is used by nations to achieve impact in one way or the other and to gain soft power and influence. Aid is used as a means for ensuring economic development, fostering friendship and cultural exchanges and securing critical votes on the world stage. It is therefore not surprising that all the major countries – such as Russia, China, the US etc use aid as a form of leverage to advance their influence and interests.
The suspension of USAID programmes across Africa would undoubtedly affect African countries, however, its long-term negative impact on the US is ominous. Indeed, the President of Ghana, HE John Dramani Mahama speaking at the Munich Security Conference on 14th February 2025 asserted that the withdrawal of USAID from his country would be filled by other countries willing to support Ghana. He stated categorically that “we will not sit and wait for the USAID”. This signals a shift, and a willingness to deal with other countries more aligned with the interests of Ghana. Quite clearly, this is a stance which many more leaders across the continent may be willing to take by cutting down on overall expenditure to meet more pressing needs.
The art of international development assistance is an area that is sometimes overlooked in importance. It is a key tool for building bridges, developing international relations and part of the overall diplomatic initiatives undertaken by countries in furtherance of their national development strategies. It secures markets, ensures trade, transfers technology and culture and most of all extends influence for the country providing the aid.
America is therefore expected to be impacted by the USAID closure in the following areas;
• Reduced Global Influence. America has used USAID since 1961 to gain significance, visibility and respect across the globe. It is in every region of the world and this allows it to build goodwill and partnerships. There is no doubt therefore that closure of USAID would reduce the U.S.’s ability to influence Africa.
• Erosion of Diplomatic Influence – USAID’s work in governance, rule of law, and human rights helps promote American values, particularly in African countries. As this support diminishes, U.S. diplomatic leverage in these countries would diminish, and the likelihood of China or Russia filling the void is very real.
• Loss of Economic Ties: While USAID has been involved in supporting countries in Africa, it has at the same time been creating markets for American goods and services through interaction with local economies and infrastructure. With this roll back, there is a likelihood of a drawback in gains made by U.S. businesses in Africa, thereby affecting trade and investment.
• Reputation Damage/Foreign Policy: The U.S. could suffer reputational damage on the global stage if it steps back from its humanitarian commitments.
American aid has over the years represented compassion and a commitment to development. A retreat from this mission would damage U.S. moral authority and global leadership in addressing human suffering.
The signals from the USAID shutdown has immediate benefits for America, but would ultimately undermine its long-term foreign policy objectives. Clearly, many African nations would suffer in the short term but may devise new ways of developing their countries. Through improving international cooperation and new opportunities for Europe, Russia and China to fill the gap, Africa may overcome the severe economic quagmire fostered on them by the sudden withdrawal of the needed resources.
For the US, it would result in a diminished ability to project influence globally, weaken their international cooperation capabilities and the additional benefits accruing in the areas of security and economic development. Most importantly, it would suffer severe reputational damage, leading to the loss of U.S. leadership in humanitarian and development efforts.
Overall, the closure could burn the bridges the US has built over the years and change the development aid dynamics, allowing other countries to improve their development aid and alliances. This could alter the global power dynamics.
