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 (79)
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 agree because it was really hasty.
I agree because... people need aid
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 also agree that the closure of the USAID was too hasty and not thought through enough. A lot of people loss their lives because of this. Although they had stated that foreign aid turned out to make up less than 1% of the US's federal government budget, which is a good reason because they also need to focus on their own country, however they should have at least gave out a warning instead of making fast decisions like this.
I agree with you because they dint give a warning and it happent so fast people cuoldent prepare for the sudden stop of aid support.
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.
Hi, creative_aspect!
Do you think other governments or organizations replace USAID?
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.
These are good points resourceful_orange. Thanks for responding to my question!
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.
Thanks for sharing an example from your country ineffable_tornado. These are really good points.
I hear you Ineffable Tornado, I’m in agreement. You are right to state that the USAID did not shut down, but that certain programs were paused. Not that different from the way we understand what actually happened; the distinction actually matters. That said, I also agree that slowing or pausing major humanitarian or development programs too quickly can still do real damage. When a health clinic or education support program suddenly loses funding, communities that rely on the services often don’t have time to recalibrate. Even temporary gaps can disrupt medical care, food distribution or the education system, hitting the vulnerable people the most. Reforming aid makes sense if programs are poorly managed, but reform needs to be planned in the right way. If the objective is long-term independence, then changes must be gradual and coordinated, not abrupt. Otherwise the people who depend on that support end up paying the cost.
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)?
Hey, sorry for being unclear, of course I can expand on it!
I mentioned an example of USA pressuring Ukraine into unfavourable terms to end the war, under the guise of helping them. Expanding on that, the USA provided Ukraine with a deadline to meet to accept terms, but the terms were in no way fair to Ukraine, and left them weak if accepted. The terms involved territorial concessions (Ukraine giving up land to Russia), limits on Ukraines military, restrictions on NATO membership, and tight deadlines. The USA and Russia were likely collaborating to leave Ukraine weak, to attempt a takeover at a later time.
As a second example of the USA’s harmful influence, is the current situation in Cuba. Since the USA basically took over Venezuela, they’ve stopped all oil shipments to Cuba, as well as other resources. As such countries like Canada have stopped all flights to Cuba to ensure Canadians don’t get stuck due to lack of fuel on the way back. Cuba is now left struggling with power outages and supply shortages. Due to the USA’s massive influence they have pressured countries into not helping, but has luckily failed. Several countries have reached out and supplied aid.
Some may say the USA is simply looking out for its own people to lower gas prices, but lowering gas prices is not worth risking others lives, and trying to cut off their support lines is literally trying to leave them vulnerable, for control. In conclusion, the USA has been using its power, and influence through humanitarian negotiations to pressure other countries into submitting to unfavourable terms.
Thanks inquisitive_atom. So your point is that the US is using its position of power to influence specific outcomes - e.g. Ukraine or Cuba - which may, in turn, have a negative humanitarian outcome. So rather than resolve a humanitarian crisis, the US is potentially causing a new crisis? Is that correct?
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?
Thanks for the question Emily.
IF reform was actually the goal, why would speed be the priority. When you’re dealing with programs that support many other people and can affect something as large as their lives, the outcome could have been paused/slowed down way more. I want to restate that you’re dealing with real people; not just numbers on a budget sheet.
A more reasonable approach would have been to slow down and review everything carefully instead of rushing. The government could have kept essential, life-saving programs still alive WHILE taking time off to check which or what programs were effective and which weren’t. After that, they could make specific cuts or changes based on real evidence and what would actually help the people who need help over the government. That way, waste is massively reduced, but communities that solely rely on this support aren’t suddenly shut out.
Many other countries have reformed their aid systems without shutting everything so quickly. The UK merged its aid department with its foreign office to better align strategies. Australia also did something similar.
I want to state that I’m not saying aid should never be cut or reviewed. Governments should absolutely have the responsibility to spend responsibly and reasonably. But when you rush such a big operation that affects many people's whole lives, the consequences will outweigh the benefits.
Thank you succinct_apricot, you raise some great points.
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.
Hello, bright_potato! I appreciated your comment very much and agreed with it significantly! I would like to add two points. If the US keeps the aid, it could create more "alliances." They would be able to not break bonds with other countries, but create them. If the US was ever in need of help the other countries that they have helped could help them. Also, I have checked your comment with several AI checkers (Quillbot, Zero GPT, and GPT Zero) which all said that your comment was at least 90% AI. I am not saying this to diminish your thoughts, but to keep this amazing opportunity fair for everyone.
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?
There is a debate about whether USAID was closed too quickly.acirding to my search,In 2025, many of its programmes were stopped or moved to a different department.
Some people say the change could save money and make foreign aid work better. They think changing the system might improve results in the future.
Others believe it happened too fast. When aid stops suddenly, people can lose access to food, health care, and education.
In my opinion, big changes like this should happen slowly and carefully. It is important to improve the system, but also to protect the people who depend on it.
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 $62 billion dollars (sourced from ourworldindata.org).
-The country had been supporting and providing assistance to 130 countries, such as Ukraine, the DRC and many more.
-Future consequences the globe may face with this cut back could lead to millions losing the rights to education (approx. 23 million children) and basic healthcare (approx. 95 million)
-This may also lead to 3 million preventable deaths per year. (Last three statements sourced from oxfamamerica.org)
The immediate cut can lead to system collapses, since the USA has been a huge brick in many economies and fixing of crises. It does make sense if the USA would like to cut back a bit for their own country, but suddenly pulling out an essential piece of a system that had been put in place for long time is not the best choice for international relationships. So, my final statement is that if the USA slowly retracted their funds, this would allow systems in place to slowly adjust. But with the current predicament,the heavy USAID cut was not a great choice.
Hello Storytelling_wildcat!
I really agree with your point that the sudden closure of USAID could cause serious system collapse. When a country has been one of the largest aid donors - giving around 62$ billion in one year- that support becomes part of the fondation of many systems, not just extra help.
What stood out to me most was the human impact behind the numbers. When we talk about million losing access to education or healthcare, we aren't just discussing policies, but real families and children whose daily lives could change overnight.
In my school, we once had a long-term activity that depend on follow up and support. When that support suddenly stopped, the project didn't fail immediately, but slowly, students lost motivation and structure. That experience taught me that stability matters just as much as good intentions.
I understand that governments may want to reduce spending and focus on national priorities. However, I strongly believe that a way a decision is implemented is just as important as the decision itself. A gradual transition would allow systems to adapt, while a sudden withdrawal can create instability and distrust.
Overall, your argument shows how one political decision can have wide economic and human consequences. That's why I think timing, planning and responsibility are essential in international aid.
Signing out: Fairminded_fly
From my point of view, the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty since aid organizations did not have enough time to prepare for the changes. As a result, health, education, and emergency programs were disrupted.
I believe that closing such an important agency so quickly may have saved money in the short term but caused major problems for those who depend on international aid. Organizations need time to plan and coordinate their projects. By acting so quickly, this need was ignored, which could have negative consequences on the development of the countries that receive aid.
In conclusion, although it is important to review expenses and priorities, the process should have been better planned to avoid harming the most vulnerable countries.
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 think the closure of USAID was a bad decision because it has caused, and will continue to cause millions of preventable deaths. Multiple studies show that the closure of USAID will result in an additional 14 to 22 million deaths by 2030. . Another reason for my opinion is that the US will not benefit in the long run, as many developing countries will become reliant on China for funding due to the closure of USAID. As a result, the sphere of influence of the USA will get smaller.
I disagree because... I think the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty because international Sid programmes support million of vulnerable people who depend on consistent funding for health care, education, food security and emergency relief.l believe this because when funding is suddenly paused or withdrawn, organization and local communities have little time to adjust, which can disrupt hospital, school and humanitarian services that people rely on everyday
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.
I think the paid closure of USAID was too hasty since the end of more than 80% of USAID programmes affected as many as 95 million people. Closing the USAID, which meant cutting basic healthcare access, 11.2 million newborns are likely to miss out on critical postnatal care within two days of their birth, and the shutdown also severely disrupted development and humanitarian projects in over 120 countries.
Some may say that ending the USAID was the right decision since it would eliminate a significant line item from the federal budget, and it would also create a "long-term development" in recipient nations. The USAID funding makes up less than 1% of the total U.S federal funds; closing the USAID would reduce the government fund and align with american intrests more.
In conclusion, I think that closing more than 80% of the USAID was not the right decision since it affected people relying on it.
Thanks for sharing your research. Can you tell us where you found your information - what are your sources?
I strongly believe that the USAID closure was way too hasty. When you stop an aid organization like USAID so rapidly it can cause problems for people who need the actual help. USAID did a lot of things for people in many countries. They helped with health, education, disaster relief, and much more. When the USAID stopped funding, the local organizations had to stop/cancel the services they were providing. Therefore, this is the main reason I think the USAID closure was way too fast. USAID was vital for so many people, and stopping it so suddenly was a bad idea.
I think thankful_fig made a beneficial point when they said that about 83% of USAIDs programmes got cancelled after a short review. This really shows how fast the changes happened with USAIDs programmes after the closure of funding. USAIDs programmes had a lot of aid projects that were important like getting people vaccinated or building water systems. These things take time to get started and to keep running.If the money, for these aid projects stop, then all the progress that was made previously over the years will be lost. If USAID programmes try to start these aid projects again, it will cost even more money than it did the first time.
However, I recognize the other side as governments have the necessity to review their budgets and make sure money is being used effectively. Overall, even if changes to aid were needed, the speed of the closure caused more harm than good. This demonstrates that when governments make major decisions, the timing and planning are just as important as the decision itself.
As a young person looking at the future of our world, reading about the rapid closure of USAID is deeply disquieting. We are often told that global cooperation is the key to solving the world’s biggest challenges, yet seeing such a pivotal organization vanish overnight feels like a retreat from responsibility. This isn't just about statistics or budgets; it’s about the fragile lives of children like us in developing nations who depend on these programs for education and health. By leaving a gaping void in international aid, aren't we just inheriting a more unstable and fractured world? We need a transition that is compassionate and gradual, not an abrupt exit that leaves the most vulnerable in the shadows. Our future shouldn't be built on the ruins of broken promises."
The paid closure of USAID was a strategic mistake.
USAID is not just a humanitarian agency. Instead, it is a central tool of geopolitical stability. Development assistance mitigates state fragility, attenuates famine, strengthens public health systems, and improves governance capacity. These directly influence the likelihood of, for instance, conflicts, pandemics, and human mass migration. As a historical matter, U.s. foreign aid has been cost effective compared with military intervention. The food security and disaster relief programs have saved millions of lives and kept outlaw areas in check. Through strategic analysis, funding for development is preventative policy.
The closure of USAID also created a sudden imbalance in power. Global influence does not disappear when leaders withdraw, rather, it shifts. Competitors such as China increase their influence through infrastructure management and developmental loans. Retreating leadership weakens the stability of power worldwide.
Critics argue USAID is inefficient and bureaucratic. While the concern is legitimate, large public institutions can be checked for flaws, and abandoning them sacrifices proven benefits.
Closing USAID would trade long term stability for short term optics. When viewed from a global perspective, this creates an extreme imbalance in power and leadership.
I strongly believe that the closure of USAID was too hasty. Firstly, many developing countries such as Haiti, Afghanistan, Yemen, Burkina Faso all depend on aid. The aid has helped provide jobs, given education, strengthened health, and has supported the systems that helped bring citizens of a developing country out of poverty and has given them many opportunities. By puling away aid that entire communities rely on, we destroy this stable system that they had. What is more cost-friendly for the US government is not the only factor to consider but also the security of peoples lives. Aid is already interwoven into many parts of their daily lives and to just completely shut it down with no backup plan is completely unjust to civilians. They are left with nothing to support them. Instead of just completely pulling out, I believe that they should have a done a gradual decrease of funds and introducing other things like fair trade policies and reducing tariffs so that they could expand businesses. Overall, I think that decrementing the amount of aid given is a much better alternative than shutting down in just a few months.
I think USAID was shut down fast. The organisation probably needed to be fixed or made better. Closing it so quickly was not a good idea. A lot of countries depended on USAID for things like healthcare and food. USAID also helped people in emergencies. Stopping this help all of a sudden without making sure other people could take over was very bad for people who were already struggling. USAID was very important, to these people. They needed the help that USAID provided.
I believe that changes to aid systems should be done slowly and with a lot of thought not quickly. We can make aid programmes better make them work efficiently or cut out unnecessary spending all while making sure that the people who need aid the most are still taken care of. When we make decisions quickly it is usually the people in the poorest communities who have to deal with the bad results. Aid systems are very important. We need to make sure that any changes to aid systems are good, for everyone, especially the people who rely on aid systems.
Overall, while reviewing and reforming international aid is reasonable, ending USAID’s work so abruptly was irresponsible, because saving money or restructuring should never come at the cost of human lives and basic health and safety.
The closure was too hasty if you ask me. Shutting down aid programmes to quickly made communities unprepared. Due to this uncertainty, it disrupted essential health, education and emergency services, affecting those who rely them. Reform should reduce waste, not cause chaos. Honestly, a phased, well-planned approach would have protected lives while still achieving financial discipline. Acting fast may have looked decisive, but acting wisely matters the most. The USAID was NOT bold reform but a rushed move that possibly disrupted vital services and put lives at risk. Changes should be made to protect lives while trying its best to fix problems
I believe the decision to shut down USAID almost immediately felt overly impulsive. While reducing government spending can be important, abruptly cutting funds to such a large and complex organization ignores the careful planning such changes require. Major reforms should be part of a gradual, thoughtful process, not a sudden halt that disrupts lives.
My view is shaped by the role USAID plays in long-term efforts like healthcare, education, food security, and disaster relief, which support millions of people across the world. When funding was paused or suddenly reassessed, many local partners were forced to stop vaccination drives, suspend school programs, and scale back emergency response efforts. Restarting these services is not simple; trained staff leave, trust is weakened, and communities are left vulnerable. The damage caused by interruptions can last far longer than the political decision that caused them.
The sudden shutdown also created uncertainty for aid workers and local organizations who depend on consistent funding to plan responsibly. Programs were caught off guard, making it harder to measure effectiveness fairly.
Governments should review spending and demand accountability, but reform should balance efficiency with responsibility. A slower, deliberate approach could reduce waste while protecting essential services. In this case, speed seemed to take priority over stability and long-term impact.
The rapid closure of a major aid agency like USAID would likely be more harmful than helpful, mainly because international aid systems operate like long-term support networks rather than short-term projects. Sudden withdrawal can disrupt vaccination drives, disaster relief programmes, and education initiatives that vulnerable communities depend on.
India provides a great example for this. After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, international assistance played a key role in rebuilding coastal infrastructure, restoring fishing livelihoods, and improving disaster preparedness systems. If aid partners were to withdraw aid to India suddenly after the disaster struck the country, it would have taken time to rebuild. Additionally, the transformation of India to be not just a country that receives aid but one that gives aid, like in disaster situations to other countries in the region, highlights the positive impact of aid constancy.
Abruptly cutting off international aid carries its own risk of submerging into deeper instability that one day affects everyone. In contrast, carefully sustainable and reformed aid preserves both global communities and international interests.
I think the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty because major aid programmes cannot simply stop overnight without serious consequences. I believe this because several news reports in early and mid 2025 highlighted that health clinics, education projects and emergency‑response teams suddenly lost funding with very little warning. For example, international outlets reported that organisations working in places like Sudan, Haiti and Gaza had to scale back or suspend life‑saving services almost immediately after the pause in US funding.
Supporters of the decision argued that acting quickly was necessary to reduce spending and rethink foreign‑aid priorities. But even if a government wants to change direction, shutting down the main aid agency so suddenly meant communities and NGOs had almost no time to prepare, which made the disruption far worse than it needed to be.
I think the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty because it basically pulled the rug out from under people who needed help the most. I believe this because the article mentions how it disrupted health, education, and emergency programmes; which show that even if you want to change things, doing it this quickly just leaves vulnerable communities in a really tough spot without any backup plane. In the end, international aid isn't just numbers on a spreadsheet; it's people's lives. Change is necessary, but when speed is prioritized over safety the real-world consequences are devastating.
I think that the rapid closure of the USAID was a too hasty decision because there were a lot of people worldwide who were previously getting the USAID were badly affected by thins decision. All I can think of is the number of students of all stages in different ages who were deprived of that aid which was helpig them to achieve their dreams that they had .I guess that USAID was also based on selection criteria,so what is the fault of those who draw plans for their futures based on that aid?I guess al ot of university students had to change their field of study after they had big dreams.Other may argue that It is the right of the US to cancel the support and aid any time,but i would say that they may have cancelled it for the coming projects but they should have continued the projects that were already in progress.
The USAID closure is a deal and it seems like it happened really quickly. Stopping 83% of the USAID program in 120 countries is a big change and it must be very hard for people who need these services everyday. I mean people who need help with things like health and education and emergency relief in these countries. The USAID closure is going to affect a lot of people. It is going to especially tough, in areas where people really need these kind of help. I understand why people think this was necessary. The thing is, the money we give to our countries is a very small part of the money our government spends. It is than 1% of the federal budget. The United state Agency for International Development which's USAID did not have money to keep it going. So the probably had to cut back on some things and make some changes, to how the do things. This might have been something they could not avoid doing with USAID.
But here's the thing: even if the decision was needed, the speed of it seems to have caused unnecessary harm. I
I think the paid closure of the USAID was far too hasty because the USAID also funded the majority of U.S. humanitarian and development assistance worldwide. The effects of the cuts on the people is dire: at least 23 million children stand to lose education, and as many as 95 million people would lose access to basic healthcare, potentially leading to more than 3 million preventable deaths per year.
Nevertheless some people that are in support of this movement are arguing that it was a very necessary decision to cut government spending and help with international spending. I found out that foreign aid actually only makes up around 1% of the US federal budget.
In conclusion, even if the government believes that what they are doing is helping with cutting funds, they are actually putting many lives in jeopardy by halting essential heath, nutrition and humanitarian services. Clinic closures and medical supply shortages are costing access to basic healthcare for millions.
Personally, I think that the paid closure of USAID was not justified and was too hasty, mainly for the reason of the rapid impulsive decision. There was no time to take in consideration, considering many aid organizations depended heavily on stable USAID funding, and the sudden pause of funding meant they had almost no time to adjust. This impacted a lot because as a result, all the health clinics, education programmers, and emergency response projects in vulnerable communities were interrupted. The government should have made a phased plan to follow rather than just shutting down the agency so quickly. If they made a slower transition, it would have protected people who rely on the ongoing support for USAAID.
I agree with you. USAID was actually a platform where people could get international aid from. The closure of USAID was actually too hasty because many organizations depended heavily on it. As a result, organizations such as hospitals, schools, and even other aid organizations actually were greatly impacted. This forced them to stop their activities or reduce their activities. For example, a hospital that really benefitted from the aid supplied would not have enough instruments and materials to continue saving lives due to the sudden close of the aid.
I understand the people that may believe that the closure was not too hasty because they think that the USAID might not have had sufficient resources to continue. However, if the closure was necessary, I would have advised a gradual reduction of aid so as not to affect people, instead of shutting it down completely. This would have actually given communities that depended on the aid time to adjust.
I think that the paid closure of USAID was way too quick, because cutting aids like this can effect millions of people relying on their international aids to possibly loose their lives. Many people that are currently going through any kinds of treatments like doctor check-ups, surgeries, or vitamin supplements, Malaria, Cancer to loose their lives even tho this could have been preventable. For example: many people require modern technology tools like laptops or smart-boards in order to enhance student's learning and learn more skills in school or it can help make learning way easier, but then suddenly cutting these aids can cause millions of students to loose their learning abilities. Some people stated that this decision was right because foreign aids make up around 1% or less of the US's federal budget, and the government didn't have enough money to help support everyone, so cutting aids because of money problems are reasonable, however the problem isn't the cutting of aids, it is how fast their decision was, because they hadn't even thought about the consequences of what would happen if they did this.
In conclusion: The USA cutting aids because of the lack of money isn't a problem, however doing it too fast can cause a bunch of people to loose their lives because of the lack of medical care. I think instead the US government should rethink their actions before doing something that could be a major problem to any international countries.
I think it's not only too hasty, but also unnecessary. If they couldn't aid at time so why must they aid ? they could have waited until they were actually able to help.
Although it will save money for them but it would harm the country by destroying the trade relationships. Foreign assistance is not only humanitarian it is also a strategic tool that supports long-term national security and diplomatic influence. Cutting can destabilize fragile regions and weaken international partnerships.
Sudden withdrawal risks creating power vacuums that rival nations may fill reducing U.S global influence.
l think that closing of USAID right now is like too impulsive, it is just not good that making a big budget,while it was very bad to close USAID because many countries was depending on it like my country kenya offering job opportunities contributing motor vehicles and motor bikes construction of healthcare centers,classrooms like one is in our school,distributing wants to needy people. some people say the government had to do fast to reduce west, to do fast do not mean making choices that are not right ,remember USAID agree and change the world slowly .My persperctivly comes from the roles of USAID plays in supporting when healted or near terms assessment are required local groups were to stop healthcare programs they came to support and motivate.
I think the paid closure of USAID was too hasty because the government stopped helping millions of people in only six months. I believe this because the money used for this help actually comes from the taxes of everyday people. For 60 years, citizens agreed to share their money to give medicine and food to poorer countries. The government said they closed it because the U.S. wasn't getting anything back but they forgot that the people giving the money felt that saving a life was the best reward. Closing a 60 year old project so fast is unfair because it doesn't give the children and families in those countries any time to find new help. What I mean that it was better to give poor people enough things and don't close it suddenly so they can find other way for help.
Thanks for reading ☺️
I believe that the rapid closure of the United States Agency for International Development was too hasty. Even if the government wanted to reduce spending and rethink foreign aid, shutting down such a major agency so quickly caused disruption. The USAID organisation supported health, education, and emergency programmes that many vulnerable communities relied on. When funding was suddenly paused, organisations had little time to prepare. Important decisions like this need careful planning. Closing USAID so fast was too hasty and likely caused unavoidable damage to many organisations.
I feel like the closure of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was a hasty decision.
Unless a country is facing an extreme financial or global crisis, shutting down such a major aid organisation so suddenly creates serious problems. Many countries rely heavily on USAID support. For some, aid is not just extra help — it is essential for healthcare, food programmes, education, and emergency relief. When funding is paused without proper planning, these systems are disrupted. Vaccination campaigns, disaster response efforts, and education programmes cannot simply “wait.” They are continuous processes that affect people every day.
Reports suggested that around 16 to 31 countries depended heavily on USAID assistance. Because of the sudden shutdown, many programmes were paused. Critical services like vaccinations and disaster response cannot just stop and restart without consequences.
At the same time, I understand that supporters had valid points. Reforming the aid system to make it more accountable and transparent is reasonable. As a powerful country, the United States has the right to review its spending.
Still, reform does not require sudden closure. Changes could have been introduced gradually — checking projects, reorganising departments, or shifting funds carefully. Completely shutting the agency without a smooth transition feels unnecessary and unjust.
So overall, while reform may have been needed, the way it was done was too abrupt. Strong decisions are important, but they should also consider the global impact.
I believe that the rapid closure of the United States Agency for International Development was too hasty. Even if the government wanted to reduce spending and rethink foreign aid, shutting down such a major agency so quickly caused disruption. USAID supported health, education, and emergency programmes that many vulnerable communities relied on. When funding was suddenly paused, organisations had little time to prepare. Important decisions like this need careful planning. Closing USAID so fast was too hasty and likely caused unavoidable damage.
What are your thoughts?
I think that this is very hard for the people that need aid like Ukraine and other poor countries. This means that the people who have suffered war or natural disasters will not have any help or any food.
I think the closure of USAID was too hasty because the information I read says there are projects all around the world that the cuts to USAID effect. Sources say the USAID cuts could result in 14M preventable deaths by 2030.
One example is: for many years USAID has helped non-government organizations in northern Nigeria to help provide food, healthcare, and shelter to millions of people. Lack of food for children is a huge problem. Humanitarian leaders are worried that adults who are desperate to feed their children may turn to risky ways of surviving, including joining violent groups. This could lead to even bigger problems. Some people may say that countries need to learn to survive on their own, but I think wealthier countries have an obligation to help other countries.
I think the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty because it could hurt many people who depend on help from the US. I believe this because lots of countries rely on this aid for things like hospitals, schools and emergency food. If it suddenly stops, people can suffer very quickly.
Even though the government may want to save money and change its priorities, such a big decision should be planned carefully. In my opinion, it would have been better to improve the system slowly instead of closing it so fast.
I just want to add something to what I said before and really emphasize it. Even if people think USAID needed reform, why did it have to happen so fast? Why couldn't the government assess the situation first? Big systems can’t just disappear overnight without real consequences. When funding suddenly stops, programs don’t fit into a puzzle neatly. They will collapse. Staff leave, clinics close, supply chains break, and much more.
I also think people forget that USAID wasn’t only about sending money. It helped organize and guide projects. When that structure disappears quickly, smaller groups that depended on it are left confused and unprepared. If the goal was saving money, I’d like to see proof that rushing actually saved more than a slower transition would have. Because fixing chaos later often costs more than preventing it in the first place.
Reform makes sense. No government program should be subject from review. But speed without a clear plan feels careless, and is careless, especially when vulnerable communities are the ones who pay the price. When support disappears all of a sudden, they don’t have backup plans or savings to fall back on. They just have to suck it up and face the consequences.
If the government really wanted smarter spending, they could have fixed what wasn’t working instead of shutting everything down at once. Strong leadership is not about acting fast just to look strong and powerful. Its actually about thinking ahead and making sure people are not hurt in the process. I am eager to hear more comments to forward this discussion!
I think the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty because it did not give enough time for aid organisations and communities to get ready.
USAID helps many countries with important programmes like health, education, and emergency relief. Stopping this support suddenly caused problems for people who rely on these services.
I believe this is a big issue because millions of people need USAID for things like vaccinations, schooling, and disaster help. Even though supporters say the decision was needed to save money and rethink priorities, proper planning could have avoided these problems.
In my opinion, closing USAID so quickly caused unnecessary difficulties for many people. So, it was not the right way to do it.
I think USAID was closed too quickly as it could cause millions of deaths short term and economic + political issues in the long term.
USAID stopped over 80% of their aid in the matter of months. Millions of people who relied on that aid will lose their lives or jobs due to this, especially in Africa. Africa has been in a constant battle against health, economic and environmental issues for years. The withdrawal of aid from these countries has put them at risk and will force them into contracts that will, in the long run, cause more harm than good.
An American company called Zipline has been providing aid to Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Nigeria and Rwanda since the shutdown of USAID. They have saved many lives, but this is unlikely to last. US laws have already started encroaching on government rule, such as limiting abortions, forcing governments to pay more than they, can and reducing spending on diversity promotion. This loss of freedom is the pattern many NGOs follow, and affects countries heavily.
As USAID was retracted too fast, these countries are now in desperate need of help and will likely take whatever contract they can get to help their people, even if it will cost them their freedom as a country in the long run.
If USAID had done a more controlled closure, the government could have made better solutions, such as finding more local support, or if they had more time, improving their economy to support themselves. They have been put in an uncomfortable position with only one semi-safe way out. This is why slower aid retraction would have made such a difference.
The sudden decision to shutdown USAID sudden in early 2025 is ahuge deal.But I think the Rapid Closure was way too Hasty. I believe this because stopping thousands of programming in just 6 months and ignores the 60 year Bond built by every day citizens. For decades Taxpayers share their money for medicine and food because they believed that saving the life was the best reward.By canceling about 83℅ of these programs by July 2025 the government didn't just cut a budget they broken a long standing promise without giving families anytime to find a new way to survey it's hard to find a new path when you're support vanishes overnight.I do understand the argument that we need to save money and focus on problems at home. However even if the government felt that U.S wasn't getting anything back these projects are about people's life not just profit .When you pull support for vaccine School.So fast. it create Messy Gap that is almost impossible to fix.Studies Show that stopping aid like this lead to instability that last's much longer than the decision itself if the change had been slower organisation could have worked with the UN or WHO to make sure children's weren't helpless.To me, being a leader means feeling aid like a partnership not a project that you can just delete. Real justice is giving the Nations a fair transition so they can figure out things. we should have handle it by making a stable exit plan. How we terat other's during big problems show our value. If we were tge ones depending on this help, would we tgink 6 months is enough time to star over. Thank You!
However, in my opinion, the fast closure of USAID seems to be a process that is moving too fast, especially considering the fact that the international system of aid is serving millions of vulnerable people around the world and the process is of such great magnitude that it requires a smooth transition plan.
Why I Hold This Opinion:
In my opinion, it is a good point to consider, especially considering the fact that the sudden stoppage of funds may directly affect different sectors such as the health sector, educational initiatives, food security initiatives, and so forth.
In my opinion, it is important to note that although the intentions may be good, such a process may not be the right one, especially considering the fact that there may be confusion and uncertainty on the part of local organizations and the local population regarding salaries, medicine, and so forth, even if the intention is to improve the initiatives.
In my opinion, although there may be a need to improve and even reform some initiatives, it should not be at the expense of stability, especially considering the fact that the system is serving millions around the world.
I think the paid closure of USAID was the right decision as the it no longer served the same purpose as when it was created. USAID was created by President John F. Kennedy, November 3, 1961 to fight against Soviet influence during the Cold War.(congress.gov +Ohio State University) From the start this organization was built for US benefit. After reading through the comments I understand why on base it looks like a harmful thing as it disrupted many current operations, however I want to evaluate this on a more holistic scale and try to understand the other side. The idea I saw the most was that people's lives were being lost. I understood this point however I also realized the many cases in which aid was misused. USAID shifted from what it use to be. Now there are many more complicated parts such as NGOs, developmental aid and other complex things, there is without a doubt misuse of aid. In 2025 USAID sent Aid for displaced Syrians and more around 9mill dollars was diverted by a NGO leader to armed groups (govdelivery). When US money is being used to fund tanks and guns that shoot down the very people and countries they want to help I think they have every right to draw back and to restart only when there trust is earned or to completely change how the system works. So while on paper it may seem like the USs decision was rash I strongly believe there are still ration reasons behind this and a reform to make sure the money is used for the purpose it was created for but also to make sure they money is spent on people in need the paid closure was the right decision.
One major issue with rushing USAID reform is that it doesn't consider the knowledge that is in the system. Many experienced staff, local partners, and much more hold valuable expertise and are great at what they do. Cutting funding so suddenly will stop operations as a whole.
A way better approach overall would have been something similar to incremental reform: evaluate which programs are underperforming, see what proves ineffective, cancel or improve funding, etc. This, in turn, would maintain support for vulnerable communities while still having at least some sort of accountability/responsibility.
Another solution to this rising issue that no one talked about yet, is creating reform with local partners. After reading many of you're comments, I've come to the conclusion: The government could collaborate with NGOs, local governments, etc, to make more actually reasonable and useful improvements. This fully ensures that programs meet real needs and the people are getting what they actually need.
Finally, another last step that the US could have taken was to enhance transparent stats and reporting. This really could have replaced a sudden shutdown that affected so many lives. By setting clear performance indicators/timelines, USAID could gradually redirect funds where it’s most effective, while still giving communities time to adapt.
How could the U.S. government redesign international aid in a way that reduces costs while still protecting essential services for vulnerable populations?
I believe the quick closure of the United States Agency for International Development was too rushed. It left aid organizations and the communities they support with little time to adjust. This sudden halt and cancellation of funding disrupted essential health, education, and emergency programs, including HIV treatment and food assistance, in several countries. While supporters argued that quick action was needed to cut spending and rethink priorities, the sudden closure led to serious humanitarian issues and instability. A slower transition could have prevented this.
I think the paid closure of USAID was too hasty because I believe they failed to account for the consequences of their actions. I believe this because the debris of their decision is much deeper than people think. When the USAID halted funding in 2025, it left multiple sectors at a standstill. From my research, the story that caught my attention was the clinical crisis in Kenya. When the aid ceased, so did the efficient work of the health care center. It involved loss of essential HIV care, such as counseling, testing, and antiretroviral treatment, which was interrupted. It also created a lot of unemployment because the staff no longer had any work to do. These are all effects of the hasty closing of USAID. Imagine a situation where they accounted for all the bodies and sectors that were going to be affected; the mess would not have been as severe as we see. Instead of rushing to a close, they should have instead allowed organizations to be informed and helped them to plan how they can manage without the aid. This would have been better. So this is why I think the closing was too hasty, because the close left an imbalance in many systems.
THANK YOU.
January 2025, shortly after taking office, U.S. President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14169, which ordered a 90-day pause on virtually all U.S. foreign aid while the government reviewed how those funds were being spent and whether they aligned with the administration’s priorities. The State Department then issued widespread stop-work orders on existing foreign assistance awards, effectively freezing both new and ongoing development and humanitarian funding with only limited waivers for emergency food and lifesaving humanitarian interventions. Over the next two months, the review became far more consequential than a temporary pause, with officials deciding to terminate or cancel the vast majority of programs previously run by the United States Agency for International Development and dramatically reduce its workforce.
By March 28, 2025, the U.S. Secretary of State formally notified Congress of plans to **dissolve USAID and fold its functions into the United States Department of State, citing fiscal concerns and a desire to realign foreign assistance with broader diplomatic strategy. In the months that followed, roughly 83 % of USAID’s programs were canceled and most staff laid off as part of this restructuring. On July 1, 2025, USAID officially ceased operations as an independent agency, with its remaining responsibilities administered by the State Department, marking a fundamental shift in how the U.S. delivers international aid and ending decades of separate U.S. civilian development leadership.
The sudden decision to shut down USAID feels rushed and poorly planned. The United States is one of the most powerful countries in the world and plays a big role in helping other nations during wars, disasters, and economic problems. Because of this influence, its foreign aid is not just money but also support that keeps many systems running smoothly. In recent years, the USA has been one of the largest donors of international aid, providing help to more than a hundred countries, including places affected by conflict and poverty. This support helps millions of people get basic needs like education, food, and medical care. If this aid stops all at once, many schools and hospitals may shut down, leaving children without learning opportunities and families without healthcare. Experts also warn that such cuts could cause a rise in deaths that could have been avoided. While it is understandable that a country may want to focus more on its own people, removing such an important support system suddenly can harm global stability and damage international trust. A slow and planned reduction would have allowed countries to adjust, but an immediate withdrawal creates serious risks.
The question of whether the USAID for International Development was closed too quickly is complex. USAID is a U.S. government agency that provides development assistance, humanitarian aid and suport for education, healthcare and infrastructure worldwide. Its programms help vulnerable populations, promote stability and foster long term development. Closing USAID too rapidly has serious consequences. Many ongoing projects are disrupted, leaving communities without essential support in healthcare, education or or disaster relief. Vulnerable populations, who rely heavily on the agency´s assistence, face setback that could have been avoided with more gradual transitions. Abrupt closure risks undermining cooperation and trust, as partner countries depend on the continuity of aid programms. While decisions to close USAID involve factors such as employee safety, political priorities and financial constraints, the pace of this closure did not allow proper planning or replacement support. This lack of preperations increased risks for communities and countries dependent on its work. In conclusion, USAID was closed too quickly. A more deliberate and carefully managed transitions could have minimized disruptions, ensured the continuity of aid and better supported the people and nations who rely on its critical programs
The shutting down of USAID was premature because it conflated reform with withdrawal.
Foreign aid is not, first and foremost, about charity. It is about building global systems before disasters break out. By way of USAID, America was not merely building projects, it was averting instability. Immunization campaigns lower the possibility of pandemics. Food security projects lower the possibility of mass migration and conflict. When these systems are withdrawn abruptly, small problems balloon into costly emergencies that will, in the end, require military or crisis intervention—costing far more than prevention. The big challenge for policymakers was the growing domestic demand to cut costs and demonstrate the effectiveness of aid. Citizens demanded accountability. But speed became more important than strategy, and prevention programs were derailed before new solutions were developed.
A workable way out would have been to transform USAID into a “Global Prevention Fund.” Rather than investing in large-scale development projects, it would concentrate solely on preventing three specific global threats: pandemics, food failures, and climate change-induced displacement. Each project would be directly linked to specific, publicly available outcomes, reductions in the transmission of diseases, famine rates, or displacement pressures. The budget would decrease in size but increase in specificity, proving its worth through hard numbers.
This would make taxpayers happy, minimize waste, and maintain America’s pivotal role in addressing the world’s most pressing dangers.
In early 2025, U.S. foreign aid didn’t just shift on paper it stopped, almost overnight.
On January 20, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pausing nearly all foreign assistance for 90 days. The official reason was to review spending and make sure aid aligned with U.S. priorities. But for organizations around the world, the impact was immediate. Contracts were frozen. Payments were halted. Clinics, food programs, and humanitarian operations were left waiting for answers.
I think rapid closer of USAID was too hasty, because of some of their own reasons, but in my opinion they could have African countries mostly to prepare on how to manage programs already funded by the USAID, the African developing countries have no capacity to assist their communities the way USAID and other donors were doing,this decision was not fair because so many african countries were benefiting from USAID and due to rapid and hastly closure this has made many people who are benefiting from this organization to be more poor and depressed ,The organization managers they could have updated other countries before they hastly closed there organization of which so many poor countries have been benefiting from the organizaion,Again due to hastly closure of this organization so many services colapse like education ,health services and even relief programs are now colapsed and this was along term initiatives that could have help so many people or countries to develop.
In my opinion i conclude that hastly closure was a big mistake,thank you
I think the rapid closure of USAID was too hasty because major policy changes that affect millions of vulnerable people should be carefully planned, not rushed. International aid is not just a line in a budget; it supports vaccination programmes, emergency food supplies, and education projects in fragile communities. When funding is suddenly paused or withdrawn, the immediate impact is felt by people who often have no safety net.
I believe this because evidence from previous aid disruptions has shown that even short funding gaps can interrupt medical treatment, delay disaster response, and force local organisations to shut down. According to reports from global health groups, sudden cuts in international assistance have led to shortages of essential medicines and the suspension of community-based services in low-income countries. These are not abstract consequences — they directly affect children, families, and frontline workers.
While I understand the argument that governments need to control spending and reassess priorities, such decisions should include a clear transition plan. Reforming an agency is different from closing it quickly without giving partners time to adapt. In my opinion, responsible leadership requires balancing financial concerns with humanitarian responsibility.
I think the rapid closure of United States Agency for International Development was too hasty because decisions like that do not just affect budgets, they affect real people.
I believe this because aid programmes often support families who rely on them for basic things like food, medicine and schooling. If funding suddenly stops, it is not just paperwork that is disrupted, it can mean a clinic running out of supplies or a school losing support. Communities that depend on long term projects do not always have a backup plan, so sudden changes can feel overwhelming and unfair.
I understand why some people supported acting quickly. They might feel that spending needed to be reduced or that the system needed reform. It is true that governments sometimes need to make bold decisions to bring change.
But personally, I feel that when people’s health and safety are involved, it is better to slow down and plan carefully. Reforming aid could still happen, just in a way that gives organisations and communities time to prepare.
That is my view, but I am curious to hear what others think too.
Closing the United States Agency for International Development in 2025 was not just a policy change it affected real people. For decades, USAID helped provide food to families during famine, medicine to children battling disease, and support to communities rebuilding after disasters. These programs were not simply about politics; they were about human lives and hope for a better future. While every government must look after its own citizens, turning away from vulnerable populations around the world can weaken both moral leadership and global stability. In a connected world, helping others is not a sign of weakness it reflects shared humanity and long-term responsibility.