The dismantling of USAID will shift its objectives to private entities, preserving U.S. global influence.
NEW DELHI: With the dismantling of USAID, primarily due to its diminishing effectiveness and its “hidden” ability to influence democratic processes without being overtly tied to U.S. government agencies, it is expected that similar objectives will now be pursued through the funding that was previously allocated to USAID, now directed toward private entities, including those operating on social media platforms.
USAID’s preference for mixing development with political activism, as widely reported in recent years, including by The Sunday Guardian, which highlighted the agency’s interference in Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Nepal, contributed to its unfeasibility. As its activities in local politics became more apparent, USAID’s role became increasingly difficult to sustain.
It is assumed that, even if the Donald Trump administration had not come to power, USAID would have eventually been replaced with a new system to enforce U.S. interests through “democratic” means in other countries.
Observers believe that, rather than relying on centralised, state-run organisations like USAID and the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM)—which were key components of U.S. soft power, often considered more potent than its military power—the new system will be decentralized. This system will involve public-private partnerships, whose connections to the U.S. government will be harder to trace, even though they will continue to serve as tools of the U.S. “deep state.” In March 2024, the U.S. presidential budget request for fiscal year 2025 sought $950 million for USAGM, a 7% increase from 2023.
Once the dust settles, it is expected that the remaining parts of USAID, rather than focusing on how to carry out its tasks, will shift to overseeing and funding the entities that will assume its responsibilities—primarily influencing local politics, parts of media, and bureaucracy to achieve U.S. goals.
An official with firsthand knowledge of these developments stated that many of the policies Trump wanted to implement during his first term were sabotaged by certain members of his military, intelligence, and diplomatic teams, whom he later referred to as the “deep state.” It is believed that top USAID officials were among those who played a role in this sabotage.
Even before Trump was sworn in, and while it was clear he would win, details of USAID’s involvement in attempted regime changes—some of which were successful—began to emerge, with insiders being the source of leaks.
The void left by the end of USAID is likely to be filled by various private and public-private partnership entities, which will continue to pursue the objectives of its predecessor.