As part of a series with Harvard’s Center for International Development on global economic growth, the Institute of Politics’s John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum led a conversation on March 25 exploring the repercussions of dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development. The event featured three panelists discussing the future of U.S. foreign aid after the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts and reorganization plans; the stakes involved in such a policy change, and whether restructuring the nation’s aid infrastructure is pragmatic or positive for development initiatives abroad.
The panel gathered leading experts in the international economic development sector—many of whom had previously collaborated on foreign aid initiatives in Washington, D.C. Speakers included Nisha Biswal, Deputy CEO of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation; Paul Foldi, Vice President for International Development Affairs at the Professional Services Council; and Jonathan Nash, President and CEO of Blumont, a global humanitarian assistance nonprofit. CID Executive Director Fatema Z. Sumar moderated the discussion.
Founded in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy ’48, USAID was intended to lead American efforts in international relief and development. Since its inception, USAID has invested in global health, economic advancements, and disaster aid—supporting everything from eradicating smallpox in the global south to rebuilding post-conflict societies like Rwanda after the 1994 genocide. Historically, it has enjoyed bipartisan support as an instrument of international stability.
However, over the past eight weeks, USAID has undergone significant funding reductions, leading to the termination of numerous programs worldwide—including food security initiatives in Africa, maternal health services in Southeast Asia, and democracy governance support in Eastern Europe and Latin America. These cuts have halted vaccine delivery, clean water infrastructure, educational development, and women’s empowerment initiatives.
This dissolution comes as part of President Donald Trump’s intention to drastically scale back foreign aid, which he has characterized as wasteful spending. Trump seeks to redirect these funds towards domestic priorities, such as border security, military spending, and infrastructure.
As of March 29, the cuts are reported to have eliminated 18,908 U.S. jobs and 166,580 international positions. Ukraine faced the largest absolute fiscal aid reduction of $1.4 billion. Meanwhile, countries such as Liberia, Afghanistan, and Somalia experienced losses of over 1% of their Gross National Income. In several nations—including Madagascar, El Salvador, and Nepal—over 95% of USAID programming has been eliminated.
When thinking of this drastic policy overhaul, Sumar posed a central question in this geopolitical dilemma from the American perspective: is this a “watershed moment in how we think about international development when the history books write this moment,” or is it merely a temporary disruption—“some changes the dust will settle.”
Nash was unequivocal in his response. Pointing to the upheaval of the past eight weeks, he argued the impact has been both historic and devastating. “I see this as a watershed moment—everything has changed,” he said.
“We could talk about the 10,000 people at USAID who were furloughed, and that’s unfortunate, but tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs abroad,” Nash continued. “These were folks who were providing life-saving, life-supporting assistance to a variety of communities, so this has major ripple effects.”
For Biswal, however, the dissolution of USAID could mark the beginning of a new chapter for American international relations and financing—one that rethinks its logistical frameworks and operational structures.
“Yes, it is a moment of acute disruption and perhaps accelerated change, but it is change that we have been seeing for some time, which is that we’ve known for some time that public sector finance was not keeping pace with global need,” Biswal said. “The poly-crisis environment in which we’ve been operating—USAID and other development institutions—were not able to bring the resources necessary to address both the crises and kinda the development goals and objectives of countries around the world.”
While acknowledging the disruption caused by recent events, she emphasized that many challenges facing U.S. foreign assistance long predate the current administration.
“On the one hand, it feels like this is a consequential and watershed moment, but I think it is an acceleration of a journey we’ve been on for some time,” she continued. “Perhaps we can think about what can come next on this journey that will fill some of the gaps being created right now.”
Amid this accelerated change, however, concerns have emerged about the political motivations driving the agency’s dismantling—marking a shift from a longstanding bipartisan collaboration that American international allies have historically enjoyed. For instance, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, launched by President George W. Bush in 2003 with strong bipartisan backing, has been credited with saving approximately 25 million lives.
“My concern is that we are going to get to an inflection point where yet another aspect of America becomes a partisan issue. Where given the responses we’ve currently seen on the Hill, will foreign assistance—which apparently now we call international assistance—become a Democratic issue, and the Republicans want to shy away from it?” Foldi said.
However, the event’s experts’ views on this controversial matter varied. For instance, Biswal emphasized the importance of seeing beyond party lines in foreign policy.
“When we were on the Hill, it was the axiom that politics stops at the water’s edge. I don’t know that edge exists anymore,” she stated. “On the other hand, maybe we all need to resist the temptation to ascribe it as purely partisan and look for commonalities because many of the initiatives that have formed development assistance were born out of Republican administrations, whether you’re talking about PEPFAR, MCC, DFC, etc. So I think we have to try to perhaps stop ourselves from looking at it through a partisan lens.”
Last week, Politico reported on a leaked policy proposal circulating within the Trump administration that outlines a major overhaul of the U.S. international fiscal contributions architecture. The proposal suggested renaming USAID to the U.S. Agency for International Humanitarian Assistance and integrating its core humanitarian work, democracy promotion, and women’s empowerment programs within the State Department.
The panelists weighed in on whether the recent changes represent a genuine effort to reduce bureaucracy and improve the efficiency of U.S. foreign aid—or if, given the scale of recent layoffs, meaningful reform remains unlikely and difficult to implement.
Nash highlighted that the ongoing layoffs could hinder the implementation of proposed reforms, undermining efforts to reshape the foreign aid system.
“If you’re trying to be a good change manager, you come up with a proposal, shop it around, get input, and then make the changes,” Nash said. “What’s happened here is they’ve blown up USAID—people have left, so all the expertise that you would need to make this new arrangement work are gone, may or may not come back. We’ve lost trust with a lot of our partners in-country, which will also undercut our ability to implement this new model. The new model has, in my personal view, a lot of merit, a lot of good ideas—some of which have been in the works for years.”
Building on the discussion, Biswal argued that part of the challenge lies in how foreign assistance programs are marketed to the public. Despite accounting for just 1.2% of the federal budget in fiscal year 2023, foreign aid is often portrayed in media narratives as excessive or wasteful spending—a perception she believes undermines public support of and distorts these programs’ true scope and impact.
“We have been very focused on how we think about and message development to our constituencies around the world, and less so to the individuals who, at the end of the day, are financing that—and that’s the American people and the American taxpayer,” she said.
Panelists agreed that this disconnect between public perception and the realities of foreign aid funding has further complicated efforts to build sustained institutional support for reform.
Ultimately, the Trump administration has emphasized its commitment to its campaign promise of Making America Great Again, with a series of recent executive actions framed as efforts to fulfill that vision. However, it is possible these sweeping cuts to foreign aid could have the opposite effect—signaling a retreat from global leadership rather than a reassertion of it.
Fatema echoed this point: “I think the world will and is already moving to reshape around a new order that has not one major pole in the tent. If the U.S. is not the long pole in the tent, other poles will emerge.” These remarks highlight a growing concern that if the U.S. retreats from its leadership role in international development, a power vacuum could open the door for other nations to redefine global norms and influence.
Turning to the broader implications of these cuts, the conversation shifted to how they might impact America’s global reputation. “For an administration that wants to make America great again, I think we as Americans should be that long pole in the tent. I don’t think this is going to allow us to do that again because we will be viewed as turning things off needlessly,” Paul concluded.
Nashla Turcios ’28 (nashlaturcios@college.harvard.edu) writes News for the Harvard Independent.