Washington’s Debate Over USAID’s Future
The U.S. government is considering a major change in how it handles foreign aid. The Trump administration has paused funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and is discussing placing it under the State Department’s control. This shift has sparked debates about how foreign aid should align with U.S. interests.
As Washington weighs its options, experts say the United Kingdom’s experience in merging aid and diplomacy could offer important lessons. Britain made a similar move in 2020 when it combined its Department for International Development (DFID) with the Foreign Office to create the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO). The results have been mixed.
Avoiding Confusion in the Aid Sector
The UK’s decision to merge aid and diplomacy shocked many in the aid sector. Before the change, DFID focused on poverty reduction and humanitarian efforts. However, after the merger, the new department began using foreign aid to support Britain’s political and economic goals.
This shift created confusion about the true purpose of aid. Should it primarily help the world’s poorest, or should it serve national interests? The U.S. could face similar uncertainty if USAID becomes more directly tied to diplomatic strategies.
Changes in Aid Spending Priorities
Since the UK merger, aid spending has shifted to reflect geopolitical interests. Britain started focusing more on regions like Asia-Pacific, where it competes with China and Russia.
Similarly, if USAID falls under the State Department, the U.S. may redirect aid to strategic regions rather than focusing purely on humanitarian needs. This could lead to concerns that aid is being used as a political tool rather than a way to support struggling nations.
Impact on Reputation and Morale
Before its merger, DFID had a strong international reputation, just like USAID does today. Critics argue that Britain’s aid program lost credibility after becoming closely linked to foreign policy goals.
In the U.S., diplomats and aid workers fear a similar outcome. If USAID loses its independent identity, other countries and aid organizations may view U.S. aid as politically driven, reducing trust in American humanitarian efforts.
Additionally, shifting USAID’s role could affect employee morale. Many aid workers joined the agency to help people in need, not to serve political objectives. This could lead to lower motivation and even staff resignations.
The Need for Strong Oversight
When Britain changed its aid system, transparency became a concern. Experts say that strong oversight is needed to ensure that aid is being spent wisely.
The same applies to the U.S. If USAID is restructured, there must be clear guidelines on how aid is distributed. Congressional oversight will play a key role in making sure foreign aid continues to serve its intended purpose.
Merging Diplomacy and Aid Doesn’t Solve Everything
The UK expected that merging aid and diplomacy would create a more unified strategy, but that hasn’t always been the case. Even after the merger, disagreements remain about how to balance national interests with humanitarian needs.
For the U.S., this means that simply placing USAID under the State Department won’t solve all issues. Instead, leaders must carefully consider how to integrate diplomacy and aid effectively.
Looking Ahead: What’s Next for USAID?
The Trump administration argues that aid should align with America’s strategic goals. However, aid groups worry that this could weaken humanitarian efforts. The debate over USAID’s future will likely continue, with lawmakers, aid organizations, and global partners closely watching the outcome.
If Washington learns from Britain’s experience, it may be able to balance diplomacy with humanitarian aid while maintaining USAID’s credibility. However, without careful planning, the changes could lead to confusion, lower morale, and reduced trust in U.S. aid efforts.
