Trump Shares His Message to Nations Dependent on USAID: Plans to Transfer Projects to the State Department

In a bold move that could reshape the future of U.S. foreign aid, President Donald Trump has announced plans to transfer the functions of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to the Department of State. Trump stated that many of the projects that were once managed by USAID, especially those that were “legitimately benefitting” the nations they targeted, will now be handled directly by the State Department, under the leadership of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
This decision comes as part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to streamline government operations and reevaluate the efficacy of foreign aid programs, a key focus of the president’s “America First” policy. Trump argues that there is no reason for USAID to continue existing as a separate entity, especially when the State Department, which already manages much of U.S. foreign relations and diplomacy, is equipped to handle these projects more efficiently.
USAID has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since its establishment in 1961, tasked with promoting international development, responding to humanitarian crises, and fostering global stability in partnership with various governments and NGOs. Over the years, USAID has helped deliver billions of dollars in aid to countries around the world, aiming to address issues such as poverty, health crises, and education deficits.
However, in his remarks, President Trump challenged the effectiveness of maintaining USAID as a distinct and independent agency. He pointed to the fact that much of USAID’s work overlaps with the diplomatic and foreign policy goals of the State Department. By consolidating the two entities, Trump believes the U.S. government will be able to improve coordination, reduce redundancy, and ultimately make U.S. foreign aid efforts more focused and efficient.
This proposal is part of a broader trend in the Trump administration of questioning the role and effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid programs. In 2018, the president had already suggested cutting the U.S. foreign aid budget by 30%, and this latest move signals an even greater shift towards centralizing U.S. aid activities within the State Department.
Trump’s plan could fundamentally alter how the U.S. engages with the rest of the world, especially those nations heavily dependent on USAID. For countries that have relied on USAID funding to support vital public health initiatives, infrastructure projects, and educational programs, this shift could bring both challenges and opportunities.
Proponents of the move argue that merging USAID into the State Department could improve the alignment of foreign aid with U.S. foreign policy goals, ensuring that aid programs are more closely tied to national interests. By consolidating aid efforts with diplomatic strategy, the administration hopes to ensure that U.S. aid is used more strategically, addressing the most pressing geopolitical and humanitarian concerns.
On the other hand, critics of the plan worry that transferring USAID’s responsibilities to the State Department could undermine the effectiveness and independence of U.S. aid programs. USAID has long been seen as a neutral entity focused on development work, and its removal from the State Department’s sphere could lead to concerns about the politicization of humanitarian aid. Some fear that foreign aid may increasingly be used as a tool of political leverage, with countries receiving support only if they align with U.S. foreign policy priorities.
Impact on Countries Dependent on USAID
Many nations across Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East have relied heavily on U.S. foreign aid, particularly from USAID, for funding essential services and infrastructure. From emergency food assistance in drought-stricken regions to disease prevention programs in sub-Saharan Africa, USAID has played a vital role in providing humanitarian aid and promoting economic development. For these countries, the announcement that these projects will now be overseen by the State Department may create uncertainty.
For example, countries in the Middle East that receive funding for stabilization programs or security-related development projects might see these efforts more tightly tied to U.S. strategic interests. Similarly, nations in Africa that benefit from U.S.-funded healthcare and education programs could face challenges if these projects are redefined through the lens of diplomacy or political leverage. The U.S. government could prioritize aid based on political allegiance or strategic considerations, which might limit the scope of assistance to certain countries that do not align with U.S. interests.
Moreover, development organizations and NGOs that partner with USAID may face a shift in priorities. While USAID has historically focused on long-term development goals, a merger with the State Department could lead to a shift in the types of projects that are funded, potentially placing more emphasis on short-term geopolitical objectives rather than sustainable development outcomes.
A Streamlined Government: Efficiency or Risk?
One of Trump’s primary justifications for the move is that it will make the U.S. government more efficient by streamlining the management of foreign aid. By eliminating the need for a separate agency to oversee development projects, the administration believes it can reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and ensure that aid is better coordinated with the broader diplomatic strategy of the U.S.
However, critics of the plan argue that streamlining the agencies could have unintended consequences. The elimination of an independent development agency could dilute the expertise and focus required for effective humanitarian work, especially in regions that require nuanced approaches to development. USAID has developed decades of institutional knowledge, partnerships, and technical expertise in international development, and transferring these functions to the State Department may disrupt these efforts.
In addition, while the Trump administration has emphasized reducing waste and improving efficiency, some critics argue that this consolidation may ultimately lead to a more politicized approach to foreign aid, where humanitarian projects could be used as leverage to achieve foreign policy objectives rather than being driven by development needs.
As President Trump’s decision to merge USAID with the State Department takes shape, it remains to be seen how this will impact U.S. foreign relations and the effectiveness of global development programs. While the administration’s goal of streamlining government operations may resonate with those who favor a more centralized approach to foreign policy, the broader implications of the move are still unclear.
For now, many foreign governments and aid recipients will be watching closely to see how the transition unfolds. Will U.S. foreign aid programs become more effective and strategically aligned with American interests? Or will this consolidation erode the humanitarian focus of U.S. assistance and undermine the credibility of the U.S. as a neutral and reliable development partner?
One thing is certain: the future of U.S. foreign aid is in flux, and the world will be closely monitoring the administration’s next steps as it continues to redefine its approach to global engagement.