A worker removes the lettering from USAID’s Washington, DC headquarters, February 7, 2025/NBC

By Peter M. Boehm

February 10, 2025

Donald Trump’s executive order to freeze the activities of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) — with the exception of provision for urgent humanitarian assistance — is without precedent and has sent shock waves around the world, with serious consequences not only for the thousands whose  jobs (those furloughs now halted until at least February 14 by a federal judge), but for the harm experienced by those who have been the recipients of American assistance. Add to that the donors such as Canada, Australia, Japan and the European Union, with whom USAID has partnered, co-funded projects, and strategically planned, sometimes over decades. The decision sets the policy focus and consensual approach of the donors’ Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD on its head and will open wide, enticing vistas for competitors such as China and Russia.

In policy terms, it is an unforced error beyond arbitrary and reckless. In political terms, it is just the latest act — including the economic self-harm of tactical tariffs — to belie Trump’s claim to be making America great in any way. It is a gift to America’s geopolitical competitors so outlandish that it cannot help but call into question precisely whose interests Donald Trump is serving. Indeed, in humanitarian terms, its brutality betrays a level of cruelty that is becoming the trademark of a distinctive brand of post-democracy change.

No one in the international community really saw this coming and, as issued, the decision was clouded in the usual murky MAGA-speak. As the lettering was pulled off the agency’s building entrance it was not clear whether the agency was being subsumed into the State Department or being otherwise amalgamated. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he was the new acting director. Employees’ access to IT was cut off; when the legalities are settled and if it comes to that, they will presumably receive their dismissal notices by other means. But how can the world’s largest international development agency downsize from ten thousand employees to some 300 and still administer $40 billion dollars of assistance? Obviously, this amount will be drastically cut as well.

Amalgamations of aid agencies into foreign ministries by the donor community are nothing new, as was the case in the United Kingdom, Australia and indeed Canada, with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in 2013. But in each of those cases (I was quite involved in ours at the time), care was taken to balance programming, ensure continuity, explain the decision to civil society partners and country donors and, especially, to reassure staff and contractors. Even with all that, it was a difficult task that still requires adjustment (see our Senate Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee report, More than a Vocation: Canada’s Need for a 21st Century Foreign Service, December 2023). Trump’s Sharpie thunderbolt included none of those consultative, incremental measures. Nor did the subsequent midnight posting by Elon Musk on X, noting the “shutting down” of the 63-year-old government agency.

This is a revolution, and not a good one. Halting US development assistance to South Africa, the current chair of the G20, over a controversial land law and indicating non-attendance at the summit clearly underscores the point. To the extent that the 21st century has been defined so far by a clash of world orders between democracy and autocracy, America now appears to be in the hands of the autocratic side.

There will be short-, medium- and long-term consequences to Trump’s sweeping shot across the bow of America’s global status and domestic status quo that is the attack on the USAID. Some longer-term projects will immediately cease, certainly where USAID had been active in the health sector in Africa, funding and supporting efforts on the eradication of HIV AIDS, the elimination of neglected tropical diseases (a subject where my colleagues Stan Kutcher, Mohamed Ravalia and I have worked together) and education. Second, the combination of a decision that in itself may be ultra vires and the litigious nature of American society will result in a plethora of lawsuits, some of which, including the employees lawsuit that blocked the purge, have already begun. Employees and contractors abroad will seek restitution. Musk has called them “radical lunatics” employed by a “criminal organization”. Is he retaliating for the investigation by USAID into his deal to supply it with Starlink satellite terminals for Ukraine?  “Starlink’s activity in Eastern Europe has been criticized,” per Newsweek on February 6, “with many Russian operatives claiming to have access to Starlink despite Musk’s assurances that only Ukraine was using the service.”

In practical terms, the rolling up of longer-term commitments to multilateral agencies, often multi-year exercises, including with partners such as ourselves, the Europeans and Japanese, will prove difficult, and, in keeping with the Trump administration’s brand, chaotic. Everyone involved in international development assistance, in multilateral agencies, recipient and donor countries alike is trying to discern what is going on and how it applies to them. USAID has long been a thought and policy leader in international development, influencing multilateral agencies, pushing G7 and G20 initiatives, collaborating with allies and leading on rapid humanitarian assistance in response to natural disasters. It has been the global face of American values — the tangible manifestation of Washington putting its money where its mouth is in crisis datelines, organizations and individual lives around the world. Its summary obliteration amounts to America turning its back on the global multilateral system it was so instrumental in creating.

At a certain point, these choices must be judged within the context of a geopolitical narrative defined for some time based on where outcomes fall in the balance of rules-based vs. authoritarian power. So far, Trump’s actions in his second presidency, like so many in his first, have overwhelmingly benefited the latter.

So, where does a traditional “helpful fixer” like Canada find a role in this mess? Our international development history is long. What began as the External Aid Office in 1950 with a development assistance budget of $11 million grew to $279 million by 1967, led to the establishment of CIDA in 1968, which in turn amalgamated with the then-Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 2013 and since 2015 has been part of Global Affairs Canada. With an Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget of some $8 billion, Canada is the sixth-largest global donor in terms of volume. We fall short on the .7% ODA vs Gross National Income (GNI) goal established by the Pearson (yes our own Lester B) Commission of the World Bank in 1969. Notable countries that have reached or surpassed that goal are Norway and Germany. The UK legislated a 0.7 ODA/GNI benchmark but later repealed its legislation and reduced its ODA contributions. With an economy that expands with oil price fluctuations, Canada sits at 0.37 and is on an upward trend.

If the US really steps back who will fill the void? Will a change of government in Canada lead to serious downward adjustments in terms of both funding and initiatives? Will the Trump administration next target the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank) and the regional development banks under its pretext that the US either getting “ripped off” or others “not paying their fair share”? At a certain point, these choices must be judged within the context of a geopolitical narrative defined for some time based on where outcomes fall in the balance of rules-based vs. authoritarian power. So far, Trump’s actions in his second presidency, like so many of his actions in his first, have overwhelmingly benefited the latter.

The US has been the largest global donor to critical UN agencies such as the World Food Program, the UN Development Program, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and others. Among the OECD donor community, it accounts for about one-fifth of bilateral assistance to the Global South. Should these amounts decline significantly (and current signals are not encouraging) who will step up to fill the void?  China, which has been using foreign direct investment (FDI) in the form of Belt and Road infrastructure investments to prop up autocrats “elected” and unelected, will not hesitate to double down on that model via development assistance. European Union members are already large contributors and face their own domestic political challenges with respect to convincing a skeptical electorate (Germany and, on the horizon, France) that more is required. On the cusp of an election here in Canada, the leader of the official opposition has already indicated a wish to reduce the size of the international development assistance budget by diverting a significant amount to defence spending.

In my opinion, there needs to be a serious national policy  conversation about international development assistance in Canada. It should include policy makers at Global Affairs Canada, academics and representatives of civil society partner agencies, the private sector, and a cross-section of interested Canadians. This process would also greatly benefit from the participation of serious politicians from all political parties (and perhaps a few independent senators). I would argue that our traditional policy and operational structures may not be strong enough to meet the disruptive challenge posed by the volte face of the Trump administration.

Canada will need to set priorities, examine niche areas in which it has led and excelled over the course of several governments. The Maternal Newborn and Child Health Initiative of 2010, the establishment of a Feminist International Assistance Policy in 2018, education initiatives for women and girls generated through the Charlevoix G7 summit were all “niche” initiatives that paid off and demonstrated Canadian global leadership. We should continue to work with others to ensure that humanitarian assistance is delivered quickly and effectively. This is what enlightened self-interest is all about.

With the Trump administration now apparently abandoning that ethos, we should sit down with the remaining like-minded donor countries to explore new avenues for cooperation. Our current presidency of the G-7, leading to the summit at Kananaskis in June (regardless of who the host prime minister will be) should give us some unaccustomed leverage to lead a discussion and to extend that discussion to South Africa in its G-20 leadership role, with or without the Americans.

Lastly, Canada needs to be straightforward in setting the narrative straight on international development assistance. Speaking over the cacophony of mis- and disinformation on social media will be important, as will cultivating traditional media and civil society representatives. When Global Affairs Canada’s Project Browser went off-line over a technical glitch last week, social media was filled with conspiracy theories about enemies within, government interference, action taken in cahoots with the World Economic Forum, corruption etc. None of that was true. It was the “gotcha” moment that never arrived.

Canada is a global actor and recognized throughout the world as a good one. The generosity of our international assistance programs allows us to promote economic and social development, strengthen our own security, act on our values and exercise influence for the good of human beings everywhere. We have been at this since 1950 in the international development sphere; improving, refining our approaches, and increasing our assistance over time. We have an Official Development Assistance Accountability Act that governs how development aid given to foreign countries is delivered and administered. There is a leadership opportunity throughout all this chaos to put our regenerated patriotism to the test. We should seize it.

Senator Peter M. Boehm is a former deputy minister of international development and a regular contributor to Policy.