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 (9)
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 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.
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 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.