The US humanitarian legacy under siege

USAID faces an existential crisis as the Trump administration’s aggressive restructuring and Elon Musk’s vocal opposition threaten its very survival

USAID, long regarded as a pillar of American humanitarian aid and soft power, now finds itself embroiled in an existential crisis that threatens its very survival. Founded in 1961 by President John F Kennedy, the agency has historically been at the forefront of global development efforts, providing critical support in areas such as food security, healthcare, and economic development. Over the decades, USAID has built a complex legacy—on one hand, saving millions of lives through vaccination programmes, disaster relief, and poverty alleviation initiatives, while on the other, facing criticism for allegedly serving as a tool for American political influence and intervention abroad.

Now, under the Trump administration's aggressive restructuring plans and the unexpected involvement of billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, USAID’s future hangs precariously in the balance.At the centre of this upheaval is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a newly created federal body with a mandate to streamline government operations by cutting budgets, eliminating inefficiencies, and reducing the federal workforce.

With its expansive global footprint and substantial funding, USAID has become a prime target. The Trump administration, which has already frozen the majority of foreign aid programs, is pushing to either drastically curtail USAID’s power or absorb it into the State Department—an action that would effectively end its independent operation.

The situation reached a boiling point when DOGE agents attempted to force their way into USAID’s Washington, DC headquarters, leading to a tense standoff with security personnel. Eventually, the agents gained access to USAID’s control systems, locked out employees, and combed through internal communications. Allegations have since surfaced that DOGE operatives were attempting to seize classified documents, though the department has denied any wrongdoing. The ease with which USAID’s offices were infiltrated has raised troubling concerns about the security of other government institutions.  Elon Musk, known for his ventures in electric vehicles, space exploration, artificial intelligence, and social media, has emerged as one of USAID’s most vocal critics.

He has publicly labelled the agency a “criminal organisation” and a “viper’s nest” of corruption, accusing it of funding radical leftist causes and supporting groups that oppose American interests.

Musk has called for the complete dismantling of USAID, arguing that American taxpayers should not be footing the bill for foreign aid that, in his view, does not serve the nation’s interests. While President Trump has not explicitly endorsed Musk’s rhetoric, sources within the administration suggest that his views have influenced internal discussions about USAID’s future.

Signs of this shift are already visible—nearly 100 USAID employees have been placed on administrative leave, including two security officers who attempted to prevent DOGE’s entry. Additionally, the agency’s website and official X (formerly Twitter) account have been taken offline, signalling that a fundamental transformation is underway. If these trends continue, USAID’s six-decade existence may soon come to an unceremonious end.

The ramifications of this crisis extend far beyond the political infighting in Washington, DC USAID operates in over 50 countries, funding programs that provide clean water, healthcare, sanitation, and ed   munities. At the same time, India has increasingly scrutinised foreign-funded NGOs, with the Modi administration tightening restrictions on organisations perceived as meddling in domestic affairs.

In this light, a reduced USAID presence may align with India’s push for self-reliance. Moreover, as the US pulls back from global aid commitments, India may see an opportunity to expand its influence in South Asia, filling the void left by Washington’s retreat. The broader question at stake is what role the United States intends to play in the world moving forward. Should it continue investing in foreign aid as a means of exercising global leadership, or should it prioritise a more insular, America-first approach? Supporters of USAID argue that America’s strength is not merely derived from military power but also from its ability to assist those in need.

A retreat from humanitarian efforts would create a vacuum that rival powers—especially China—are eager to exploit. Beijing has already made significant inroads through its Belt and Road Initiative, offering infrastructure financing and economic partnerships to nations that might otherwise have sought aid from Washington. If the US abandons its foreign aid commitments, it risks ceding valuable influence to geopolitical competitors.

The coming months will determine whether USAID’s fate is sealed or if political resistance will salvage some version of the agency. What is certain, however, is that this is not just a bureaucratic dispute—it is a battle over the values that America chooses to uphold. If humanitarian aid is sacrificed in favour of a purely transactional foreign policy, the consequences will reverberate not only in the nations that once relied on US assistance but within America itself.

The world is watching, and history will judge whether this moment signifies the decline of American global responsibility or the dawn of a more ruthless, self-serving era in US foreign policy.

(Amal Chandra is an author, political analyst, and columnist; views are personal)