Was USAID closed too quickly?
Discussion question | This is for ages 14 to 16
In early 2025, the US government announced major changes to how it would deliver international aid. Within months, funding was paused or reviewed, and by July 2025 the US Agency for International Development (USAID) was officially closed.
Supporters said that acting quickly was necessary to reduce spending and rethink priorities. Critics argued the speed of the decision left aid organisations and communities with little time to prepare and that this disrupted health, education and emergency programmes.
Was the rapid closure of USAID the right decision, or was it too hasty?
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think the paid closure of USAID was [the right decision/too hasty] because [the reason for your opinion]. I believe this because [a piece of evidence].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (32)
I think the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty because ending most of its programmes so quickly affected essential services that millions of people rely on. I believe this because after a short review, the US government cancelled around 83% of USAID’s programmes, cutting aid that supported health, education, and emergency relief in about 120 countries.
At the same time, others argue that acting fast was necessary to reduce spending and rethink priorities. They point out that foreign aid makes up less than 1% of the US federal budget, and USAID did not have enough funds to support everyone, so cutting back and reorganising aid was understandable.
In conclusion, even if cutting aid was necessary due to limited funds, doing it too fast caused disruption and harm. This shows that the way how changes are made is just as important as why they are made
I completely agree with thankful_fig because he/she goes straight to the point and specially in the conclusion. In addition, she/he explains perfectly why did it happen and why what people think about it is so polarized.
Personally, I understand why USAID had to close but I also think there were other ways of doing it that could have improved the situation. To sum up, I believe the way things are done are also important and they should have had that into account.
I think that the closing down of USAID almost immediately was just a little too impulsive. It is just not fitting that making a big cut in the budget, while it was very vital, leads to shutdown of such a large organisation almost immediately. There are often just steps that are very necessary, which are part of a big, thoughtful process.
My perspective comes from the role USAID plays in supporting long term initiatives in health care, education, and disaster relief that affect millions of people worldwide. When support halted, or near term assessments are required, local organisations were obligated to stop vaccination programs, suspend education service, or reduce response activities to natural disasters. There are difficulties in relaunching these services when they're halted, and the effects of the halted programs can extend longer than the original decision-making process. Both members and organisations found it difficult to adjust to the halt in funding.
While it is true that governments should continually evaluate their spending and the effectiveness of the aid they are giving, it should not be done in such haste that stability is compromised. If reform were implemented slowly and methodically, it could eliminate waste and ensure the provision of vital services. However, what ultimately transpired was a decision that prioritised speed over responsibility.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, talkative_statement! Could you cite your sources for the statement 'both members and organisations found it difficult to adjust to the halt in funding'?
I think that the closure of USAID was too hasty because the speed of the decision left lasting instability in places where US developmental programmes had been operating with years.
When an agency of this scale, responsible for billions in health, education & humanitarian programmes is shut down in just a matter of months, partner organizations lose funding abruptly, and long term projects stall or completely disappear before the planned reforms can take effect. Studies have shown that, pauses in aid repeatedly lead to gaps in vaccine delivery, educational support, and emergency crisis response capacity, which leave vulnerable communities without services they once depended on.
At the same time, I can hear the opposing argument, that many said it was necessary to cut spending, eliminate inefficiencies and direct more resources to domestic issues. Some even say that it can be important to do it quickly, to stop the slow drawn out transition.
However, even if reform may have been justified in some senses, the pacing of reform still matters. Major changes work best when governments coordinate with partners, such as the UN or WHO, and set timelines to maintain basic conunitury for services. And, in this case, the abrupt approach created major uncertainty not only for international organizations, but also for U.S diplomats and local staff who suddenly had no clarity in the capabilities of what they were able to do, in terms of furthering support.
For this reason, I think the closure was ultimately too fast, and its consequences outweighed any intended gains.
I think that the paid closure of USAID was too hasty because the USAID because that amount of change in such a short amount of time will make a lot of people undergoing their treatments, such as major cuts affected HIV/AIDS treatment, malaria control, TB, maternal health, and nutrition initiatives, threatening to cause millions of preventable deaths. It is a reckless desicion that was made by the government. A lot of workers were Terminated because of the sudden desicion with some of them reported given as little as 15 minutes to clear personal belongings. This leaves them to struggle in though job markets while having to provide for their families.
I believe thsi because, the USAID used to have over 5000 programs running but then it suddenly decreased to roughly 1000 programs left. It could include certain problems like having the solution to a disease but trouble in identifying people with the diseases, or having certain vaccines but the lack of transportation to carry it.
I believe that even if the USAID were to be discontinued they should have given more time in preparation to prepare more efficiently. Thanks
I strongly believe that the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty, because it happened too fast without enough thought about the actual consequences. While cutting government spending can be important, closing an entire aid agency so quickly caused serious problems. US can seriously consider cutting down on its military spending rather than cutting down on aid.
I sturdily believe this because when funding was paused, many aid organisations were not ready for the closure. Health programs were stopped, if they were not expensive already, schools lost support, and emergency aid was delayed. These programs help the people who already have very little, and when they suddenly disappear, those people suffer. This was not something that could just be paused and restarted later.
Some people say the government had to act fast to reduce waste. However, acting fast does not always mean making the right decision. USAID could have been reviewed or slowly changed instead of being shut down all at once. Because the decision was rushed, many projects were left unfinished, which ended up wasting lots of money and effort.
Overall, changing international aid may have been necessary, but the way it was done was careless. The rapid closure of USAID created more problems than it solved, and it should have been handled more carefully. I look forward to pushing this discussion!
I agree that the US Aid funding program was cut short way too fast. Despite the fact that so many lives have been saved because of these support motives, you just have to say that the aid program was cut off too fast because so many people rely on these services, making plans for management, and ways to boost these services and use them to advantage, but the funding was cut off, making these people recall the support they desperately need. These support sysytems were essential for things that made up survival for these people.
Also because following my research, international development and humanitarian response operate by time that match people’s needs, how they plan, often urgent and necessary, and times like these don’t sync with sudden political decisions like this closure. Even if a government wants change, doing it overnight without solid transitional arrangements tends to cause harm rather than help, for anyone.
I feel that the dissolution of USAID was too abrupt. This has caused a lot of problems for millions of people worldwide.
In my country, USAID was one of our major donors to our development and humanitarian programmes. But now, we have lost over 142 million dollars in USAID grants and contracts due to the abrupt US funding cuts.
This has caused an increase in food insecurity, put critical health programmes at risk and a lot more.
Why I think the dissolution was too soon is because now, Nigeria has to look for other alternatives for aid, especially in the Northern Region. If this happened a bit later, counties that depended on the aid would have had enough time to find alternative before the funding was finally cut.
There have even been estimates that over 9.4 million people will die in the next four years due to this.
I honestly think that the closure of USAID was too quick because many countries really need those because some countries are at war and some of those programmes cancelled are Momentum Country and Global Leadership program (JHPIEGO), PMI Reach Program (PATH), Global Health supply Chain Procurement and Supply Management (GHSC-PSM) T02 Malaria Program (Chemonics) etc. And according to the work of thankful_fig I know that 83% of USAID programmes have been cancelled and many countries need them e.g. Nepal, Madagascar, Gaza, Nigeria, Congo, Jordan, Yemen etc. But I don't blame them because US does not have the money to support all these countries and more. And some of the most affected countries are Ukraine, Ethiopia, DRG, Colombia etc. And the USAID has faced cuts amounting to approximately 83% of its funds, leading to the termination of numerous programs worldwide.
In conclusion I don't put all the blame to US but the countries that need the USAID should try as much as possible to be independent and support themselves in one way or the other.
I think the paid closure of USAID was too hasty because it caused sudden and serious disruptions to important aid programmes that millions of people rely on. Many supporters say it was a good decision, so that the government could save money to focus on different priorities, but because of this decision hundreds or thousands of communities have been affected due to this and even some large organisations.
Poorer countries depend on USAID for things such as, education, healthcare and support, without these things anymore the people who rely on USAID have been heavily impacted. I believe this because after a short review on some research I have found out reports indicate 83% of USAID programs were cut and some countries even facing 95% or higher. According to research healthcare programmes that save lives every day have also been afflicted because of this. USAID had supported numerous treatments such as, HIV, malaria, tuberculosis and more.
In conclusion I believe countries like the USA shouldn’t have cut aids if it saves lives and support people in hard times. For these reasons I think the rapid closure if USAID was too hasty rather than considering on what would’ve been a better outcome.
Can you share where you found your evidence?
I think the rapid closure of USAID was the right decision, even though it felt sudden to a lot of people. I believe this because sometimes big systems don’t change unless action is taken quickly. USAID had been around for decades, and even with all that time and money, problems like poverty and conflict were still growing. That suggests something wasn’t working properly and needed a serious reset.
This links to citizenship, where we learn that governments must decide how to use public money responsibly. If aid programmes are inefficient or not reaching the people who need them most, pausing and restructuring them quickly can stop further waste. For example, reviewing aid all at once can help governments redesign it so it supports long-term solutions instead of short-term fixes.
However, I agree with other commenters that the speed of the closure caused real problems. Health and education programmes were disrupted, and that affected ordinary people, not politicians. This shows that while the decision might have been right, the way it was carried out could have been more careful. A faster decision doesn’t always mean a smarter transition.
Overall, I think closing USAID quickly was meant to force change and rethink how aid works, which is important for the future. But listening to the criticism also matters because good international aid should be both efficient and humane. This debate shows that aid isn’t just about helping; it’s about how help is planned, delivered, and improved worldwide.
Good job! I like how you layer your arguments while also addressing the opposing side. You mentioned that local governments often distribute aid inefficiently. I would like to know what you think is the top three reason behind this challenge.
I think the rapid closure of USAID was way too hasty.
The problem wasn't the idea of altering how international aid is delivered and given, but the actual speed at which the decision was made. Funding was paused/reviewed only within months, and by July 2025 USAID was completely gone. This gave aid organisations that depended on USAID very little time or even no time to prepare or adjust to anything whatsoever, which certainly led to a bunch of major disruptions.
Many health, education,emergency, and much more programmes relied on USAID funding and coordination. When support was suddenly frozen and stopped, clinics struggled a lot to provide care, schools faced staffing; as if they weren't facing enough already, and emergency response systems were weakened by huge amounts. These programmes cannot adapt overnight, especially in vulnerable regions where alternative funding and infrastructure are limited. Even if reducing spending priorities was necessary, acting so quickly and swiftly ignored many real-world consequences for people who relied on these services.
In conclusion, reforming international aid may be beneficial, but the quick closure of USAID caused unnecessary harm. A slower, phased approach would have allowed the government to rethink its priorities without disrupting lifechanging programs. Thats why I think the decision was too rushed to be considered responsible or effective.
The rapid closure of USAID was too hasty because it didn't just affect goverment budgets or political priorities, it directly impacted people's lives. When funding was cut so abruptly, aid organizations had no time to adjust and communites had no time to prepare. Clinics ran out of essential suppplies, health workers lost training and support, and families were suddenly left without services they had relied on for years. The speed of the decision meant that critical health, education, and emergency programs were disrupted before any stable alternatives were put in place.
I believe this because, according to Harvard surgeon and writer Atul Gawande and research in The Lancet, USAID saved nearly 92 million lives over TWO decades. When an institution with that level of reach and effectiveness is dismantled so quickly, its protections don't disappear all at once; they weaken gradually and unevenly. The harm often goes unnoticed at first, spreading through vulnerable communities quietly in ways that governments and headlines struggle to measure.
Governments can pause funding, revise priorities, and close agencies, but they CANNOT pause human need. The rapid closure of USAID showed what happens when efficiency is valued over continiuty and numbers are valued over lives. Its consequences were felt far from political debate, in clinics without medicine and families left without reliable care. When decisions determine who receives help and who is left without it, they become moments where human lives are weighed, and too often, lost.
I agree with you because generally a lot of people feel that the decision by the government of the US to shut down USAID quickly wasn't a good choice because they realize that the lives of people and budgets are impacted and altered by that decision. Experts like Atul Gawande, showed that USAID saved about 92 million lives over the last two decades, as proven by the Lancet.
I think it’s good that it’s closed. You can’t move forward as a country if you’re constantly sending your resources overseas. But the way it was closed, I think was wrong. A lot of people became dependent on aid so I think it should have been closed over a longer period of time and the US should’ve helped people get back on their feet before pulling out of a country completely
Thanks for your comment enterprising_eel. Can you share evidence of where people in a country have become dependent on aid, and how USAID's closure in that country impacted them?
Hi! I agree that the closure could have been carried out in a more planned way so that people would have had time to adapt and not be so affected. However, I also don´t think USAID should have been completely closed, as it is still important for supporting the most vulnerable countries and ensuring the continuation of health, education, and emergency programs. I think the ideal would have been to maintain part of the support while the aid was being reorganized.
I think the paid closure of USAID was too hasty. I believe this because so many people in different parts of the world were using USAID to survive and help the people plus the land of their countries.
For example in government healthcare systems, land repairs after fires, earthquakes, floods etc. Another Example would be that people who are relying on this fund for government health care are unable to get proper resources, for medications, like HIV and AIDs. Without this fund, people are dying and unable to get treatments.
With all this said, in conclusion the USAID should have looked into the effect on people not just on the money.. and WHY the had USAID in the first place.
I have been reflecting upon the official closure of USAID on July 1, 2025, and while I initially saw it as a clumsy mistake, I am trying to keep an open mind about the government's goal of ending aid dependency and prioritizing national interests.
I have seen how stopping too early causes failure. Last year, my school's environment club was a failure because halfway through a tree planting project because many students had exams and completely forgot about the club, most of the young trees died within months. This taught me starting the project is just 10%, the other 90% is the long-term support that ensures it survives.
The USAID was previously a lifeline for 130 countries, providing nearly 30% of all global development assistance. The rapid dismantling of over 5200 active contracts including 86% of maternal and child health projects is a massive problem-solving failure. If the ultimate goal of aid is to create sustainable independence, does a donor nation have a permanent responsibility for the infrastructure they leave behind, or is it the main responsibility of a local government to fix a system they did not even design? can anyone in this discussion argue: is a clumsy aid that vanishes in just 90 days worse than receiving no aid at all?
signing off: fair minded elephant
Hello Fairminded_elephant!
I really liked your point about the tree planting project because it shows how stopping support too soon can ruin something that had potintial. I feel the same way about the rapid closure of USAID. Projects that take years to build can't just disappear in a few months without causing big problems.
In my school, we once started a community activity that needed weekly follow-up. At first, everyone was exited, but when teachers stopped checking in regularly, students slowly lost interest and the project failed. This really taught me that starting something is easy, but keeping it going is the real challenge.
USAID was helping alot of health and education programs around the world. If thousands of contracts were suddenly cancelled, that meant that hospitals, schools and families were affected. I feel like when a country decides to fund important systems in another country, it should also think about what happens if the support ends suddenly.
Of course, I understand why governments want to reduce spending and focus on their own priorities. That makes sense, but I think the way it happened matters alot. If the goal was independence, there should be a lower transition instead of a sudden stop.
Honestly, I think unstable aid that disappears can sometimes be worse than no aid at all. People is starting to depend on services that collapse suddenly, which causes frustration and distrust instead of real development.
Signing off: Fairminded_fly
I agree that the rapid closure of the USAID was too hasty because the decision was made too quickly and without enough discussion. The shutdown happened without enough consultation with experts, partners, or affected countries. There was too little careful analysis of alternatives. Decisions with global consequences should not be based on one country's opinion.
Also, USAID supported programs like food aid, medical care, and disaster relief. Closing it quickly stopped many of these programs without warning. This caused serious problems for people who depended on this help. A slower process would have avoided sudden harm and saved lives.
Moreover, aid helps prevent crises, conflicts, and instability. Without USAID, these problems will get bigger and it gets far more expensive. So these short-term savings can lead to higher long-term costs.
So I think this decision was made to fast and not under fair conditions, because it affects many more people than just in the US
Thanks for sharing your perspective resourceful_orange. You write that short-term savings may lead to higher long-term costs. Can you explain why you think that is the case?
I think short-term savings may here lead to long-term costs, because a lot of international aid is preventive, e.g., vaccinations, HIV treatment, economic development, and food security programs. Cutting this support doesn’t mean those needs disappear; it means problems worsen. Foreign aid has historically prevented millions of deaths and reduced disease spread. If those programs stop, disease and malnutrition rise, which later require much more expensive emergency responses and treatment. Stalled economic development leads to deeper poverty, instability, and increased refugee flows, which strain international systems and can cause more problems in the future.
Before I start, I want to make one thing clear. USAID didn't "close" too quickly, it still exists and still operates. What actually happened is some USAID programs were paused or had funding problems, imagine it like this: USAID is a school, not a single class, now some classes got canceled, but the school is still open. Now you might be wondering, which programs were paused temporarily closed? well the list includes humanitarian aid programs (health clinics), and development programs (educational support).
Now that I have got that cleared up, here is my view on whether the closure of a certain USAID funded programs was to hasty or the right decision. In my opinion, it was too hasty. while it is true that some aid programs can be poorly managed, suddenly closing them temporally can cause serious harm to vulnerable communities. Many of these programs provided basic services such as health clinics, food, and educational support. When these programs were paused without proper transmission plans, people who depended on them can get deeply affected. In conclusion, although reforming aid is sometimes necessary, the sudden closure of certain USAID programs was too hasty. Aid should be designed to help communities become more independent but until that goal is reached, ending support too quickly can cause more harm than good.
I like your metaphor using the school and classes ineffable_tornado. You say that some aid programmes can be poorly managed in your post. Can you share evidence for this point?
Hello! thank you for your response, it means a lot. And yes, I can share some evidence to prove my point.
I am going to choose an example thats coming from my country. Indonesia often has floods and landslide, especially in places like Aceh. When the disaster happens, the government and other groups try too send help like food, medicine, shelter but sometimes the help does not reach the right people on time because of these problems:
1. Too much paper work. Aid has to go through a lot of paper work before it can reach people, this can make it very slowed make some families wait for days for food, water and shelter.
2. Poor planing. Some areas get too much help, and other areas get noting at all.
3. Wrong kind of help. Sometimes aid does not match with what the people needs, for example: sending food is not that useful if what the people need is clean water or shelter.
So even though aid does exist, poorly managed aid programs can make it less useful and people don't always get the help they need.
The rapid closure of USAID can be viewed from two different perspectives.
Supporters argue that acting quickly was necessary. They believe the United States needed to reduce spending, remove inefficient programs, and rethink how aid fits with national priorities. From this viewpoint, a fast decision prevents long political delays and allows the government to redesign its aid system more efficiently.
However, critics say the decision was too hasty. USAID supported health care, education, food aid, and emergency relief in many vulnerable regions. Closing or pausing programs within a few months gave aid organisations and local communities little time to prepare or replace services, which may have disrupted treatment, schooling, and humanitarian support. Because development work depends on long-term stability and planning, sudden changes can cause serious harm even if reform is needed.
Overall, while reviewing foreign aid and improving efficiency can be reasonable goals, the speed of the closure appears excessively fast. A more gradual transition with clear planning and cooperation with aid partners would likely have reduced disruption while still allowing reforms. Therefore, the rapid closure was probably too hasty, even if the intention to rethink aid policy was understandable.
I think closing USAID that fast was way too quick. It’s not just about money, it’s about real people who need help every day. Health stuff, schools, and emergency support all need steady money. When it stops suddenly, clinics can close, kids might miss school, and help slows down. People who depend on aid have no time to adjust, and that makes life harder.
In Egypt, I’ve seen how sudden decisions can mess up people’s daily lives. Even small changes can cause confusion, so big changes like this should be planned carefully.
Millions of people are impacted by this, so you can't just stop it and hope for the best. Some claim that in order to save money and reevaluate priorities, the government had to move quickly. I understand.
Governments must regulate money because it is vital. However, significant events like this should be handled gradually. Doing it too quickly can destroy years of hard work and undermine community and donor trust.
To be honest, I believe reform is necessary, but the haste with which USAID was shut down created more issues than it resolved. Programs that take years to develop can fail in a matter of weeks, and people lose the assistance they rely on. I don't think anyone was prepared for it, and it's just too abrupt.
I think the closure of USAID was necessary.
The USA has been a major power player on a global scale for years upon years, and have been a major donor to world aid. In humanitarian crises, they’ve been the first to respond but as of late, they’ve been using their influence in a harmful way.
After reading the comments, I saw how largely other countries depending on them, and changed my mind. I agreed that the USAID was necessary until all the stories I saw about dependency, and realized that it’s time for countries to step up. The USA now has the influence to manipulate countries, or threaten with tariffs if the countries stand against them. It will cause turmoil while the world adjusts, but it’s a necessary step towards independence and protecting ourselves from the powerhouse that is the USA.
The closure now gives opportunities for other countries to unite, and fill the hole that the USA left, and I think will ultimately forge greater relationships and unite countries globally due to the connections needed to fill it. Since the USA has taken a turn in motive and leadership, many countries previously on good terms have now been grappling for a way to defend, and after this we can’t be sure how to approach them. As an example, the USA tried to influence Ukraine to submit during peace talks with Russia, which was luckily vetoed, but we can no longer depend on them for aid, as that has shown they are willing to manipulate the needy for power.
In conclusion, they’ve essentially taken power away from themselves, and while it has caused harm, will ultimately be better.
Can you share evidence of how you think the USA used their influence in a harmful way as a donor of humanitarian aid (as opposed to a global trading partner and the example of tariffs)?
Hello everyone, I believe that it was in the US governments best interest to close down USAID after that short amount of time. I also believe that it should never have been solely up to the US to fund USAID and the country's it was sending AID to. The US government could have better prepared the countries by warning them about the pull out but also helping to establish other AID organisations in each country. I say this because without funding from USAID, South Africa's HIV clinics are struggling to treat over 63000 people with their proper specialized medications and leaving about 220000 people without their daily HIV medications. I also believe that the US could have been better informed about the amount of money that would be needed to go into this. I would also just like to clarify that I do not believe that it was the best decision on the US's part but in today's society it is best that county's put their own need before other county's.
Thanks for your post decisive_lynx. This is a really good example of how the closure of USAID impacted communities in South Africa. Can you explain why you think in today's society it is best to put one country's needs (eg, the US) before another country's needs?
I think the quick paid closure of USAID was too quick and hasty due to it happening so quickly that aid organizations and the communities that depend on them almost had no time whatseover to prepare or adjust at all. This affected programs providing health care, education, and emergency support negatively by a large margin. I live in Canada, and Healthcare is the backbone of society here. Clinics in US might have struggled to treat patients, schools might have staff shortages; even with the current shortages already before. Also, many local, small businesses also lost the coordination and guidance that allowed them to operate effectively, not just funding. I know this, because I also have made non-profits for school!
I recognize it is important to use spending in the most necessary way. However, moving this fast (the rapid closure) ignored the real world consequences for countless vulnerable populations. Lots of communities that had counted on consistent support from USAID were left in the dust, and restarting programs later would take drastically more time and effort. Also, the US could just lower spending on its military; a whopping 800 Billion!
Therefore, I think that a slower, phased, and more reasonable approach could have allowed the government to review spending, target inefficient programs, and make adjustments without leaving people in crisis. Reforming aid might've been necessary, but the speed and method of this closure definitely caused more harm than good. I am looking for more comments to push this discussion further!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic succinct_apricot. How do you think the US government might have gone about a programme of reform? Are there examples of other countries reforming their humanitarian aid programmes?
The USAID rapid closure was hasty because it didn’t give important country necessities like schools and healthcare enough time to improve and evolve and the government should have give more time for all the things that the country needs for improvement and to improve healthcare and aid for everyone that needs it most.
This is a very hasty decision because this is making the country worse as their not giving their people the healthcare the people need and are disrupting the major changes the aid organisations are doing for them already before the government’s even thought about it.
I think the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty because the speed of the decision caused serious disruption to essential aid programmes that millions of people rely on. While reviewing spending and rethinking priorities is reasonable, completely shutting down an agency as large and established as USAID within a few months did not allow enough time for careful planning or transition.
I believe this because USAID played a key role in delivering healthcare, education, food assistance, and emergency relief in vulnerable regions. When funding was suddenly paused or withdrawn, many local organisations were left without resources, forcing projects to stop midway. This affected real people, such as children losing access to schooling, communities missing medical support, and countries becoming more unstable during crises. In the long run, this instability could cost more to fix than the money saved by acting quickly.
Although reforming foreign aid may have been necessary, a gradual approach would have reduced harm and ensured that critical programmes continued. Therefore, the closure of USAID appears rushed and poorly managed rather than carefully considered.
I think USAID was closed too early because it was still doing important work that helped millions of people around the world. USAID provided food, clean water, medicine, and education to countries that were struggling with poverty, wars, or natural disasters. Ending it too soon could stop support for people who truly depend on that help to survive.
Many families in poor countries rely on USAID programs for basic needs. For example, during droughts or floods, USAID sends emergency food and supplies. Without that support, more people could face hunger or disease. It also helped build schools and train teachers, giving children a chance at a better future. Closing it early might mean those projects are left unfinished.
USAID also supported global health programs. It helped fight diseases like HIV/AIDS and malaria. If funding stops suddenly, hospitals and clinics may not have enough medicine or staff. This can cause serious health problems, especially for children and elderly people.
Another reason is that helping other countries can also help the United States. When countries are stable and healthy, there are fewer conflicts and fewer refugees. This can make the world safer overall.
In my opinion, instead of closing USAID quickly, leaders should have carefully reviewed and improved it. Stopping it too early may create more problems than it solves.
I think the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty. USAID has been a major source of help for many countries, supporting health care, education, clean water, and emergency stuffs. When funding was suddenly paused then stopped, many programs likely to struggle to continue. Hospitals, schools , and aid groups depend on steady support to plan their work. Closing a large agency in just a few months didnt gave enough time for communities to adjust or find other sources of help.
Supporters of the decision may argue that the goverment needed to reduce spending and rethink its own priorities. Its true that goverment must manage money carefully and make sure funds are used wisely.
However, big changes should be done step by step. A slower plan could have riviewed programs, cut waste, and improve efficiency without stopping important services overnight. Careful reform would have protected both taxpayers money and vulnerable people around the world.
The speed of the closure likely caused more harm. Health programs, disaster, and education projects need stability to succeed. When support is suddenly removed, the poorest communities suffer the most. Therefore, while change and reform can be necessary, the rapid shutdown of USAID was too hasty and should've been handled more carefully.
I think the paid closure of USAID was too hasty because major changes to international aid systems need careful planning to avoid harming the people who depend on them. I believe this because the speed of the decision left aid organisations and local communities with very little time to prepare, which disrupted important health, education and emergency programmes. This shows that acting quickly might have saved money in the short term, but it also created serious problems for those who relied on USAID’s support.
I think that many people believe USAID was closed too quickly because the changes happened within just a few months. This caused sudden disruptions to aid programs around the world. USAID had provided food, healthcare, disaster relief, and development support for decades, so stopping or reviewing most of its funding in a short time left many projects unfinished and created uncertainty for workers and partner organizations. Critics argue that such a rapid shutdown may have harmed vulnerable communities that depended on this support.
On the other hand, supporters of the decision say the government had the right to review spending and reorganize foreign aid to better match its national priorities. They believe aid should be more closely controlled and aligned with national interests.
In the end, whether it was “too quick” depends on your point of view. If you focus on the immediate humanitarian impact, it may seem rushed and harmful. But if you prioritize restructuring government spending, it may seem like a firm and necessary decision.
Thanks unparalleled_radio, you have outlined what other people think and different points of view but what do you think, was USAID closed too quickly?
I would like to say that the closing of USAID was too abrupt, and I believe this wasn't a good move. The USA is a large and influential country to the world. They have plenty of power, and work as 'negotiators' and 'peacemakers', meaning that their aid is essential to any conflict or issue affecting the globe. Suddenly closing it off can lead to all sorts of detrimental consequences to its own country, and many other nations. I'll provide my reasoning for my belief below:
-The USA claimed number one in the top three aid donors in 2023, giving a whopping total of $62 billion dollars (sourced from ourworldindata.org).
-The country had been supporting and providing assistance to 130 countries, such as Ukraine, the DRC and many more.
-Future consequences the globe may face with this cut back could lead to millions losing the rights to education (approx. 23 million children) and basic healthcare (approx. 95 million)
-This may also lead to 3 million preventable deaths per year. (Last three statements sourced from oxfamamerica.org)
The immediate cut can lead to system collapses, since the USA has been a huge brick in many economies and fixing of crises. It does make sense if the USA would like to cut back a bit for their own country, but suddenly pulling out an essential piece of a system that had been put in place for long time is not the best choice for international relationships. So, my final statement is that if the USA slowly retracted their funds, this would allow systems in place to slowly adjust. But with the current predicament,the heavy USAID cut was not a great choice.
I think the paid closure of USAID was too hasty because it caused major health crises that have made countries vulnerable and at high risk for their people to go into poverty and get sick. Many countries relied heavliy on this aid especially countries in Africa who got 83-86% of their aid funding from USAID. With the USAID closing, this has caused many of these countries like Ethiopia and Liberia , who were dependant on this aid to have desperately find alternatives to get funding for supplies needed to help people. This sudden hault has caused huge disruptions in AIDS, HIV,malaria,maternal healthcare, causing clinics to close down because of the loss of funding, especially Uganda and Kenya.
This is terrible for Africa because HIV, AIDS,malaria and maternal healthcare are greatly needed are real problems that need funding for healthcare supplies. When clinics close down, people become unable to access clinics that contain vital medication,doctors and healthcare that can help the sick.This leads to even more outbreaks of diseases that could have been prevented if the necessary funding were there to support clinics and healthcare.
I think that the USAID should have given people a warning and given those countries that receive national aid form them time to find other countries and resources that will provide them with the aid that is needed. They closed in a way that caused problems,crises,deaths and issues that could have been prevented if they had just closed in a way that allowed countries enough time to find other aids that are desperately needed.
I do think the decision to close USAID was done hastily. The relocation of their budget was a dangerous decision because you can see that after cutting some of their aid to different places, where people were/are in serous trouble and are relying on external support are, practically going under. The closure of USAID prevented people from accessing the resources they needed, so to put it bluntly, people have been suffering and dying. Even though there was concerns for the past few years that USAID wasn’t as efficient as it could be, shutting down most of the organisation does a lot more damage than saving a small amount of money.
And if there is a possibility to help others in need, one should always try to contribute.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) shut down way too rapidly, ignoring their close connections that aid programs have to communities and long term support systems. Aid, in my opinion, is about coordination, trust, and knowledge, all of which take years to fully establish. It is not all about funding or important projects either. I think that local clinics, schools, and emergency programs still might remain operating when funding unexpectedly stops, but the systems that support them like supply chains and planning networks, could potentially fall apart. Communities may be affected for a long time by this wild disruption; people may also be reluctant to participate in future programs because their recall got abandoned. Supporters may claim that speed is needed to reset goals and cut spending, but doing this so quickly runs the risk of undoing years of advancement in ways that aren't immediately clear. On paper, quick action may seem effective, but in practice, it 100% disturbs the fragile structures that help support international assistance.