On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump announced that his administration would cut over 90% of the US Agency for International Development’s foreign aid contracts and reduce overall U.S. assistance worldwide by $60 billion. Since then, headlines have captured the widespread shock among international development agencies, as many critical programs face funding cuts, directly impacting those who rely on them for essential needs.
While critics of the agency have dismissed USAID as corrupt and ineffective, their arguments overlook the crucial role USAID’s funding has played in supporting local development initiatives, particularly those focused on delivering healthcare and economic relief to impoverished communities abroad. By slashing funding, thousands of lives will be lost, democratic institutions abroad will be undermined, and the challenges these programs aim to combat will worsen, likely leading to increased migration to the U.S.
During this spring break, my visit to Honduras made the USAID’s impact feel strikingly real. Witnessing firsthand how it supports communities already grappling with economic hardship—compounded by the instability of civil unrest—was truly eye-opening.
When I entered a rural hospital just a few miles away from San Pedro Sula, the country’s industrial capital, shortly after it had been directly affected by the program’s funding cuts, I was struck by the stark image of pregnant women sitting on the floor, sweating as they waited for care. Walking down a corridor lined with patients whose faces bore the weight of desperation, I couldn’t help but fear how much severe conditions might worsen under the burden of these new financial constraints.
In a conversation with the hospital’s managing director, Mayra Flores, she revealed that several operations had been canceled the previous week due to a lack of surgical supplies and basic equipment. With the recent funding cuts, she feared this would become a routine crisis. She also emphasized the program’s vital role in providing HIV services to low-income individuals, many of whom had already been turned away in the past week after the clinic announced its newly limited resources.
For decades, Honduras has suffered from weak governmental structures and rampant corruption, with much of the funding intended for infrastructure and healthcare failing to reach its intended destination. As a result, many local hospitals depend on foreign aid to sustain their daily operations.
The human impact of these cuts became painfully clear when I sat next to a patient who was leaving the hospital after being denied her usual HIV treatment after the program was temporarily paused. Carrying a baby in one arm and medical paperwork in the other, her gaze filled with intense worry. She told me how the program had been a lifeline for her after contracting HIV when she was assaulted while leaving her night shift job on her way home to her daughter.
She then reflected on the challenges of living in a gang-controlled area, where sexual violence against women is widespread, and seeking justice through the legal system is largely futile. As a result, many women depend on non-governmental organizations conducting on-the-ground work to support victims of domestic violence.
“This was never my choice,” she said, her voice strained. “But having help from the hospital gave me the certainty that I could remain healthy to ensure my daughter is well.”
USAID’s impact extends beyond healthcare, supporting organizations dedicated to combating government corruption—one of the primary drivers of immigration to the United States from Central America in recent years.
In a conversation with an employee at the Consejo Nacional Anticorrupción (National Anti-Corruption Council), who requested to remain anonymous, it was revealed that the organization would play a critical role in ensuring fair presidential elections later this year. However, with the announcement of new funding cuts, accomplishing this mission will become even more difficult.
“Our work is to protect the little democracy we have left. I’m not sure this country can withstand another fraudulent election,” he said. “Without foreign aid, it’s difficult to sustain the programs that keep our organization functioning.”
The Trump administration has heavily criticized the surge of immigration from various Latin American regions, as well as the rise in political asylum applications. However, when the very organizations working on the ground to address the root causes driving mass migration to the United States are facing severe cuts, it’s hard to see how this will effectively reduce immigration. If the Trump administration aims to reduce immigration, it should focus on investing in organizations that tackle the root causes of migration, rather than undermining their efforts by cutting their funding.
The characterization of U.S. foreign aid as wasteful is unsettling. It reduces investment in key human rights—healthcare, safety, and good governance—to something seen as a burden. Concerns about USAID’s effectiveness often center on allegations of misused funds, with critics arguing that its results do not justify high financial investment. Nevertheless, much of the funding has supported non-governmental and non-partisan organizations that deliver crucial support to vulnerable populations.
The decision to cut funding for life-changing programs worldwide, coming from Washington, may go unnoticed by U.S. residents who believe foreign aid is wasteful. But it will not go unnoticed by the mother whose health is now permanently at risk, by her daughter, who, if targeted by organized crime groups, will lose access to critical legal aid programs for low-income communities, or by the young boy, like so many others, who will be forced to flee his home with an empty stomach as economic insecurity deepens in his country.
The question we must ask ourselves is not just whether the world can afford to turn its back on those in need, but what must be done to ensure it doesn’t. Rather than slashing funding, the U.S. government should reconsider its approach to foreign aid—prioritizing reforms that enhance transparency and effectiveness rather than eliminating programs that serve as lifelines.
Nashla Turcios ’28 (nashlaturcios@college.harvard.edu) writes Forum for the Harvard Independent.